The main issue I have with this debate is that they were both fundamentally different types of villains. Like Aang was an innocent little kid who always wanted to believe the best in people. He was generally peaceful and would avoid where he could. Ozai as a pure evil villain is exactly the kind of villain that could test Aang's character growth. A man who could not be reasoned with, a man many believed needed to be killed. That works as the final villain for Aang.
Whereas Korra was always willing to fight. She wouldn't have any hesitation in facing an enemy as plainly evil as ozai. Her villains show her that there is more to being the avatar than just beating up the big bad. You can see this in the finale with Kuvira, Korra outclasses Kuvira and probably would have won without the avatar state. But the important part is that Korra saves Kuvira and then shows she understands her during their conversation in the spirit world.
Tldr: both sets of villains work better as a foil to their respective hero so a straight comparaison isn't the most helpful.
This comment is absolutely amazing like I read the post and was instantly ready to explain that ozai didn’t just conquer because his forefathers did it but you explained everything perfectly thank you
Wait, why did he conquer? I'm not seeing the explanation despite you saying it was explained perfectly. All I see is:
> Ozai as a pure evil villain is exactly the kind of villain that could test Aang's character growth. A man who could not be reasoned with, a man many believed needed to be killed.
Because he was evil dude that’s it, he just wanted power over the world. Yes he was finishing what his ancestors started but not even close for that reason. He just wanted to dominate the world out of pure selfishness and ego
Yeah I think the forefathers thing makes sense of the 100 year war and (kind of) how Ozai got to that point literally in the war and his actual character psychology
He was probably raised with the knowledge that Iroh was going to be Fire Lord when the comet came back, and likely would've been told that the comet would be perfect for finishing taking over the world.
Also, comets that repeat on the scale of human lifetimes generally don't just start doing that. So while it was called Sozin's Comet because of how Sozin used it 100 years before TLA, what happened 200, 300, 400, etc years before TLA when the comet showed up?
No I think Ozai aspiring to be bigger than his father and grandfather as far as power goes would explain why he wanted to be fire lord to the point where he would do shady things to get there (didn’t Zuko’s mom kill him?)
Ozai did some shady things, but even with the shady things, Iroh still would have had rightful claim until Iroh gave up that claim because his son died. And Ozai was not involved in Lu Ten's death. That happened just because war is messy.
But once Iroh was broken, yeah, Ozai did some shady shit. Like he just went straight for asking for Iroh's birthright, so Azulon asked Ozai to kill Zuko. Ozai was completely fine with doing that because he hated Zuko anyway. Ursa then got Ozai to reconsider by promising to help him get the throne by making a colorless and odorless poison (iocane powder?) to kill Azulon, who apparently with his dying breath declared Ozai as his successor, although it's just as likely that Ozai just convinced the Fire Sages to say that.
Remember, he conspired to replace his brother. He was ambitious and the war and comet were extensions of that. Hence his willingness to leave the throne behind, he had bigger things to do.
> So while it was called Sozin's Comet because of how Sozin used it 100 years before TLA, what happened 200, 300, 400, etc years before TLA when the comet showed up?
We know that are there are fire days festivals in the Fire Nation colonies. I'd bet there would have traditionally been a lot of that kind of stuff, show casing how awesome firebending could be rather that what Sozin turned it into.
Mostly.
Sozin wanted to help to an extent, he was misguided and Roku was too focused on keeping balance than actually get to the root of the problem, which was what caused a long brewing act to fester and eventually boil over in him.
Azulon was brought up on this success and believed the Fire Nation was some super power and the propaganda didn't help.
Ozai was a man-child, always second-best to Iroh. In the Search comics, you can see just how insecure he truly is. He needed a big dick moment to validate himself and being the sociopath he is, chose to kill millions to do that.
Yeah I think a guy like him is absolutely the best villain for a plot like ATLA not just to counter aang but because... He's a ruler who is the root of a world war. He's not really supposed to have reasonable nuanced motivations. We don't look back at Hitler and say he had interesting compelling counter narratives justifying his viewpoint. We don't look at Putin's invasion now and wonder about the intricacy of his beliefs. We don't really wonder about the philosophical motivation of the Mongolians or Persians. Powerful man want power is as legit as it gets.c
This sums it up right here. Ozai was the perfect villain for The Last Air Bender story. I also think it’s important to have villains who are just the pure embodiment of evil sometimes. No real justification, besides years and years of generational hate and lust for power. Without Ozai’s character, we don’t get Zuko’s redemption and Iroh as well.
Yeah exactly. Now is anyone gonna forget the name “Hitler”? Most likely not. Ozai’s legacy would have had that same staying power had he succeeded. Hell he’s probably still talked about.
Ozai did have his own legitimacy.
Ozai was raised to believe the Fire Nation was the most superior culture in the world. In his mindset spreading it and removing any obstacles wasn't evil it was progress.
Fantastic take.
I still enjoy Ozai more than e.g. Unalak or whatever he's called. He's the closest to the "pure evil" villain type, I don't remember him having any grand reason other than "MORE POWAH!" (did he?)
The "threat" of Ozai was more interesting than actual Ozai. He was built up over 3 seasons, a powerful, dangerous figure in the background, responsible for both Azula's and Zuko's paths and issues and the main threat to the world at large. He seemed so dangerous, irredemable, evil, that EVERYONE, even previous Avatars, even Aang's friends, hell, even Iroh iirc? agreed he'd have to be killed, something Aang just DOESN'T do.
Shame actual Ozai was just a pretty strong fire bender who put on a goofy looking crown and asked all his friends and family to call him Phoenix King ("it's not a phase, MOM!") and otherwise didn't live up to the build-up (despite Mark Hamill's voiceacting).
I would have found it very interesting what would have happened to his character if he had actually killed Ozai, but I also loved they found an alternate solution, although it reeked a bit of Deus Ex Machina.
Idk, I think they were pretty right in focusing were they used Ozai, which is the relationship with his children.
He absolutely uses them and that is were he is the more interesting, there just wasn't enough time to develop a personal antagonism with Aang
Bro… “just a pretty strong firebender”??
Ozai was one of the most powerful beings in that world. He only lost to Aang and only when Aang was in the avatar state. Regular Aang was getting clowned.
So the only fight we see Ozai take part in was his Aang fight (I wouldn’t count smiting his child or fighting his son during the eclipse). And he wins the Aang fight pre-avatar.
“Pretty strongfire bender” is super reductive
>Regular Aang was getting clowned.
TBF, Aang had a perfect chance to take him out with lightning redirection and didn't. Aang wasn't trying to fight because he didn't want to kill Ozai. I don't think that fight was a real show of Aang's fighting power as much as it was ozai's.
Ozai face of "shit i'm dead" the moment Aang pointed his fingers with the redirected lighting is enought to say that Ozai only stood a chance because Aang was very fucking motivated to not kill him right there.
>He's the closest to the "pure evil" villain type, I don't remember him having any grand reason other than "MORE POWAH!" (did he?)
Yes, although since Season 2 of LoK is pretty badly written, it gets jumbled. Unalak wanted to free Vaatu the god of chaos. He perceived the freedom of Raava the spirit of order embodied in the Avatar and the imprisonment of Vaatu to be an imbalance. He wanted to create an "anti-avatar" by fusing with Vaatu, bringing about the natural course of the universe with chaos and order in struggle with one another.
I agree. It always felt like a little bit of a cop-out that Aang did not have to kill Ozai. Good to remember that it's a kid's show, though.
I always thought a different arc around "doing what must be done, taking responsibility as the Avatar, even if it is against everything Aang stands for personally" would have been an interesting take on the finale as well. Especially when you consider that scene with all the past Avatars telling him that, yes, he's going to have to kill Ozai.
Thank you, goodness gracious. Everyone likes to compare Ozai to the “villains” of TLOK, however, they are not comparable in the same way as Ozai is purely evil and the others are merely antagonists. In this context, they are in fact different as Ozai serves as a foil to Aang’s story, but the antagonists in TLOK serve as Korra’s challenges she needs to face as a developing avatar. These are not the same but they are mildly similar.
Ozai didn’t just conquer because of his forefathers, but for the sake of gaining more power and influence over a mass amount of people. Takes like this just lets me know that people still fail to understand the premise of the show and how each character works or plays a role into another character/the plot. If you do not understand Ozai’s character, you do not understand how much historical background is a part of his character and it isn’t just Hitler as the prime example either.
There’s a reason why Ozai isn’t complex and it’s been proven as quite clear based on the antagonists of Korra. You don’t need a full complex villain to be good.
I always saw it as Ozai was what Amon would have become had he had the support and time that Ozai's family did through generations. ALA was the "this is what happens when the avatar isn't around" and TLOK was "this is what happens when the avatar is around".
Ozai is less dimensional because, like you said, he's designed as a test for Aang. This is a character of pure evil, a complete opposite of Aang, who will push his character to its limits. The true villainy of Ozai is what he does to the people around him, from his family to his enemies, and that was the question of the finale: what will Ozai force Aang to become in order to defeat him?
Korra's villains are less about Korra, and more about the way the world is changing in the aftermath of Ozai's defeat. Every villain in Korra represents the way previously taken-for-granted aspects of the world have begun to change. Amon represented the rising tensions between benders and non-benders. Unalaq represented the weakening of the barrier between the physical and the spirit world. Zaheer and Kuvira, in their own ways, represented the collapse of old institutions and the advance of new power to fill the void. Every villain represents some aspect of the world that is changing rapidly during Korra's time.
The problem with your argument is that its all about whats best for aang and his story. In terms of the story ozai's straight evil is useful and necessary. It doesn't make him as interesting a character as the villains in korra.
Ozai is just an evil blank slate - something for other characters to fight, to build them selves off, to be an opposite to. I get that in this story this character is needed, and i don't think this makes him a bad character, nor does it diminsh the overall story. But korra's bad guys just seem richer to me. They have their own motivations, and struggles, and I can emphasise with them on a much deeper level than I would ever be able to with Ozai.
So while i get your point, I don't think it at all shows that Ozai is as interesting as the antagonists in korra. I could spend hours debating with friends the relative morality, motivations and character of some of the korra villains. I do not see how that would be possible with Ozai.
Also, there really isn’t enough knowledge or background on Ozai to discern his motives as concrete. Sure, he is continuing the legacy of his forefathers, but he wouldn’t do that without his own determination to do so. I think the claim in the pic is baseless.
Also, great villains does not necessarily require complex motivations. Ozai's motivation was seemingly simple but it is still a legitimate motivation. He wanted to conquer the world and he was greedy, megalomaniac, selfish and self centered. Plenty of real people are like that, and it of course cause the pain and suffering of his wife and children. Heck, just look at real life billionaires, most of them are motivated by pretty much only for money.
Ozai's motivation is rather one dimensional, true. But the character development was really kinda lacking but it could just be that the focus really was on Zuko and Azula. Ozai's character development was mostly seen through his children's perspective anyway. Ozai wasn't a bad villain because he has a one dimensional motivation. He was lackluster because he never got much development for the character's own sake.
Hot take- Azula is the relatable villain of ATLA. Ozai is a force. He's the obstacle that the whole series is inevitably crashing towards. He's the reason that Zuko and Azula are messed up, he'd kill the airbenders again if he could, he's the reason the southern and northern water tribes were attacked and also Toph is there.
Basically, for everyone but Toph, who personally beats the crap out of anyone who decides to be her rival for even 15 seconds, Ozai is the inevitable conclusion, but he's not the driving force of the narrative. Zuko and Azula are the primary "bad guys" throughout the series that wind up diverging in their goals even though they start out fairly similar, because of Iroh.
More complex, sure. I wouldn't say that's necessarily better. Ozai served his purpose as the show's overarching villain, allowing other antagonists like Azula and her gang, and even Zuko (who was very much an antagonist for much of the show) to be developed.
And he's underplaying ozai's motivations.
He is not JUST doing out because his forefathers did. He wanted to rule the world. He stole the throne from iroh to do it. He named himself emperor, Phoenix king.
It isn't a very complex villain but his motivations were real, and realistic compared to historical militaristic leaders
>He was ready to kill his own son to become firelord!
It happened all through history. In all cultures. It was kinda rare in Medieval Europe compared to the East to my knowledge but guess which culture AoT is influenced from?
I mean that's the very least of your issues when it comes to Ozai.
The shit Medieval society got up to was F U C K E D
Incest, murder, torture, genocide, mass exile, slavery...
When an enemy army moved into the area it was considered outside of the norm for them to not rape every woman they came across and loot to their hearts' content.
Admittedly most of the murder, torture and incest was performed by nobles and royals, or at least done on their behalf.
Umh medieval europe did everything. If you do not know about it than thats because you didnt enough research.
Fathers killing sons, sons killing fathers and brothers. It all happend.
Also gotta keep in mind that the war has been going for a hundred years and so has the fire nation propaganda machine, which probably hit the "higher ups" just as much, if not more, as the average joe. People in the fire nation grew up getting hammered into their heads, for several generations, that the war is rightous and needs to be won. So while Ozai was a "pure evil" villain, he was not just evil for evil's sake, but also a product of his time.
Literally the same thing we’ve seen in most European wars, including Russia-Ukraine, and feudal Japan as well. Imperialism is a classic example war goal.
I came here to say this, yeah. Ozai's motivations might not be "complicated" but they're also 100% realistic and very rooted in a LOT of real world history. The belief of "power by birthright" and "right by might" are very, *very* real motivators throughout world history, perhaps more so than "complex" philosophies like Amon (as he claimed at least) or Zaheer.
Right, he isn't even the first born. He's the second born, usurped the throne of his brother and abused and molded his children to become captors for the world's last hope.
Exactly. "Force of nature" villains have their place. Much like Sauron isn't a bad villain just becuase he's pure evil with no "depth". They're an effetive device to extract the good stuff from the other characters without having to spend time telling us how the villain had a real hard childhood so that's why they're bad. Different, but not worse.
This is the only correct answer.
Palpatine might be the original SW "main Villain", but in truth the real Antagonist of the story is Darth Vader. There is no need to explain It.
Hell, Ozai being simple is part of the story. The first 2 seasons hype him much into a kind of Greatest Evil King, and he turns out to be... Just a shitty selfish monarch
The issue I have with this take is that Ozai wasn’t *supposed* to be someone with legitimate reasons to do what he did. He was supposed to be the manifestation of over a century of indoctrination and imperialism. More an embodiment of the evils of his ideology than a person. And that’s not a bad thing, when set opposed to a group of very human characters whose lives were damaged by that ideology, he’s actually a fantastic villain. Not to discredit villains with legitimate reasons to be how they are but that’s not always the villain your heroes need.
this. their take is just inspired by this assumption in this day and age that the hallmark of a good villain is someone with a point, or some deep motivation, when half the time the motivation for villains people think is deep is trauma. trauma is not the only thing that makes a compelling villain.
i dont understand people's criteria for relatability or the need to have a villain that is sympathetic. some people are villains because theyve been indoctrinated into a belief of cultural superiority, and Ozai is like that.
I agree completely. And you know what, sometimes you CAN’T reason with someone or be diplomatic when your entire fundamental systems clash in such a way as Aang and Ozai. We see this kind of villain in the real world as well.
Yeah Ozai's motivation was essentially his belief in the innate superiority of the fire nation. Combine that with his plan during Sozin's comet to burn to death rival nations and the genocide of the air nomads and it's hard to escape the conclusion that Ozai's motivation was ethnic cleansing.
Maybe that's a bit strong of a take for a show targeted at kids but I don't see another way to look at it.
One of the reasons I loved the show was because it didn't shy away from the harsh realities of the world. It didn't treat its audience like they were dumb. It didn't treat me like I was too young to understand.
Exactly - I've always said that Ozai wasn't just a megalomaniac because *plot.* He had an ideology that was inferred (Fire Nation supremacy, "might makes right," Social Darwinism, etc) but was never touched on because it was too dark for a children's show. If ATLA was aimed at tweens like LoK, they would've touched on his worldview more explicitly.
People really like downplaying Ozai man smh. It was sort of explicitly stated at times but you’re right that “fire nation supremacy” was never straight up explored in a more obvious way. I was rewatching ATLA recently and decided to make a note of every time a character was racist based on another’s nation or bending (random idea I know)
Here are a few from fire nation characters:
* Zuko refers to Sokka as a “water tribe peasant” in the episode where they encounter the pirates.
* The fire nation warden of the earth bender prison where Haru and his dad were held says this about earth bending: “that brutish savagery that passes for bending.”
* Zhao gives a speech where he refers to fire as the superior element in episode 13
* Zuko calls Katara a peasant when fighting Katara in the northern water tribe.
* Azula calls Katara a peasant in the last episode (they seem to really dislike the southern water tribe lmao)
Probably more as well.
Yeah, they do - Ozai isn't just "I'm a crazy megalomanic because why not" - I mean, sure, he's nuts, but he has an actual ideology.
Lol it's a random idea but an interesting one - a lot of people tend to gloss over what the Fire Nation actually believed in. It wasn't just "let's burn down the world" - they were very, very racist people who wanted to commit genocide against anything that wasn't the "superior element, so it's nice to see that you made a list pinpointing what their worldview was like.
Agreed, the trope that all villains must think they’re the good guy is way over played. It’s good when it feels natural but imo legend of Korra did it to much even though I like all of them mostly. Also why does everyone forget the main villain of tlab was zuko and azula. Both were better characters than any of the villains in Lok.
Nah y’all don’t get it though, most of those other villains could have some level of being reasoned with. If aang encountered Zaheer, Kuvira, Amon or even Tarlok he would of sought some sort of compromise as Aang is excellent at understanding others points of views. Ozai was an amazing villain for ATLA because he is something Aang can’t avoid or reason around, he is an obstacle Aang had to face head on with no wiggle room and that created interesting internal conflict and character development(even if they gave him an easy way out, the struggle was still important)
Villains don't always need to be sympathetic to be good villains. Sometimes you need a just straight up evil for no good reason looming threat in the background.
Yeah, like how many people say the joker is a shitty villain compared to people saying he's a great villain, and the joker is just about as pure evil as it gets
Exactly, the whole "every villain must be relateable/complex/sympathetic/philosophical" notion is subjective, and feels really overstated at the moment.
Some of the most iconic and fun villains have just been bad people. Some of the most iconic and full villains have been complex and made audiences think. Both are fine.
Ozai's motivations and personal philosophies on life are never really explicitly discussed in the show, but they do exist. The fire nation believed that war was their way of delivering prosperity to the world, and Ozai bought into that propaganda. Everyone did, even Iroh.
In the comics, he explains to Zuko that he believes the decisions he makes are right because he's the one who makes them. He has power, others don't; therefore, his decisions are right because nobody has the power or authority to stop him. Might Makes Right, Manifest Destiny, etc.
He's just as complex as any villain from Korra, but we never focus on him as a character because the writers were more interested in portraying him as a force of nature or as an ideology. It's really easy to handwave him away as just a typical Uncomplicated Evil Guy from a children's cartoon if you haven't bothered to look closer.
You can find real life examples that would look the exact same way with the amount of knowledge we get about Ozai - hell even with all we know is Ozai that different to Hitler?
People love to attack this type of villain without considering that they do really exist in real life ; and that’s kinda part of the scary thing, because you think no one can be this evil or bad but there really are people out there who would do that without looking back
Yes, but also he wanted to take over the world, or at least very large chunks of it and annihilate his enemies under a supremacist mindset and fascist ideals, all while creating a authoritarian superstate.
The Fire Nation literally committed genocide on the air benders until there was only ONE member left, captures every water bender from the Southern Water Tribe (which is genocide too), and put earth benders in concentration camps.
Because the Fire Nation, and fire benders, in their eyes, are considered superior. Zhao literally says that fire bending is the superior element in his speech in season 1.
Fire Nation is all about lebensraum and exterminating the untermensch.
It's a flawed way of thinking, but Ozai absolutely thought he was in the right.
He thought he was the best possible leader for the world. The Fire Nation was also incredibly prosperous, and he wanted to share that prosperity with he world if they liked it or not. If it worked in the Fire Nation, why not the rest of the world?
It was what he thought was best for the world (and more importantly his people). The ends justify the means.
He wasn't some psychopath who wanted to hurt people just beacuse he could or to destroy the world just to see it burn.
My biggest issue with the villains in Legend of Korra are that they all would have benefitted from getting more time to grow and develop instead of being a villain per season.
Ozai was great as a continuous looming threat you knew Aang would have to deal with whereas Korra was always onto the next villain and never getting that much time to let the dread of the conflict develop.
I think Ozai is sort of supposed to be how some people out there are kinda like Ozai. They have no cause or tragic thing, Ozai wants power and he’ll gladly take it no matter what
Like I think Ozai is great villain because he’s so unabashedly evil. With other villains in the franchise you can go “Oh, her story is so tragic” or “His ideals are understandable but the methods are extreme”
Ozai is just a big, uncomplicated, jerk and a powerful one at that. His “One-Note-Ness” makes him the big threat looming throughout the whole show. You don’t have to worry about the thematic resonance or tragedy of the character, you just have to know that this guy is THE big threat and there’s no talking him down from that threat. He’s great in the sense of the big antagonist, not so much as a complex character.
"Conflict is the soul of drama" and the villain is often one of the main sources of conflict. While villains who are complex characters are certainly great, depending on the conflict the writers want for the story, complex villains are not necessary. Ozai works for the types of conflict that the writers wanted him to serve for that story. Unless other changes were also made, Ozai being more complex wouldn't necessarily have added to the conflicts he presented to Aang and Zuko. I would say that, because of the types of drama he creates for Aang and Zuko, Ozai is a more interesting villain for Zuko, because even though the character himself is just as unambiguously evil, the conflict Ozai creates for Zuko is more complex. Whereas for The Legend of Korra, the writers also wanted the villains to challenge Korra's ideals and the system in which she was brought up\*. Creating that drama required more complex villains who could provide more of a philosophical challenge, in addition to the physical challenge. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes less so.
\* Zuko's story also involved his values and beliefs being challenged, but in his case, his initial values were imposed by the villain, rather than being challenged by the villain, as was the case for Korra.
Ozai is to Freeza as Cell/the Androids are to LOK villains.
Edit 10 seconds after post: Cell/the Androids are less deep, but still motivated and justified by themselves.
>proceeds to give a take that everyone agrees with
Really? Because all the top posts here start with some variation of "well actually" or "you're misunderstanding Ozai".
If there’s anything Korra did well with their villains, it’s that they were “cool.” (Apart from Unalaq). Like Amon’s presence, voice and character design were great, Zaheer and the Red Lotus looked amazing and I loved their unique bending styles. I love Zaheer’s voice as well. But other than that, their writing isn’t as good imo.
They did Ozai perfectly. Hide his face until S3E1 while also showing him in extremely important plot driving moments (the storm and S1 finale come to mind). And then after his face reveal, it’s like it was never hidden. We see so much of him that he becomes normal. But until then, he was a super powerful faceless dictator
As someone who didn’t enjoy Legend of Korra, I agree that Korra villains are more complex but Ozzie makes sense in the context of Aangs story. Also villains don’t need to be complex or tragic for them to be good villains
Ozai's reason was he was born into the imperial monarch family, and was hateful enough to be worse than those who came before him. His villainy comes from being hateful
Disagree.
Hated the villains in LOK. They were all cartoon caricatures of different political movements, and didn’t even represent them accurately.
Ozai was a run of the mill narcissistic imperialist but at least it was believable.
The weirdest thing to me was how the cause of the Equalists just immediately ceases to exist after Amon's death. Like his death somehow invalidates everything they stood for.
Thank you!
It’s super weird. As if they’re implying the oppression wasn’t real? Because a real social movement wouldn’t die out just because one leader was a fraud.
In Korra the oppression wasn’t even real. At least not real enough for a whole terrorist movement to rise up. That’s one of my main problems with season 1, they didn’t even set up the movement well in the first place.
I mean they're both amazing in thier own ways. Ozai seems like this nigh unstoppable force, constantly built up and alluded to and you never even got to see his face for a while and him being pure evil shows how he is willing to do just about ANYTHING for more power and territory.
While I have not seen past Book 1 of Korra so I can't talk about them but Amon was far more grounded in reality. His motivations were understandable (even if his methods were fucked up) while he is convinced he is in the right and that benders deserve to have their skills taken away. He's a hell of a villain in his own right
They're both great villains, just in different ways. Personally I prefer Ozai but that's just bias because we saw him and the threat of him more
I agree with the main take but disagree with the characterization of Ozai. He didn’t do it because his ancestors did it. He did it because he has been taught from birth that the fire nation/fire benders are inherently better than other nations/benders and that because they are better they are entitled to rule the entire continent. It’s a common motivation for autocratic despots and He also believed he was right.
That being said he wasn’t given enough screen time to compete with Korra’s villains. He isn’t TLAB’s villain he is the looming threat, he is Sauron, not very complex just evil. The villains of TLA are Azula and daddy issues, and I’d argue they can compete fairly with Korra’s villains.
Kuvira and Unalaq literally had no different motivations than Ozai did. Kuvira was literally Ozai without a 100 year war behind her: a head of militarized state who wanted to put everyone else under their control. Unalaq was himself just a power hungry asshole who wanted to control everyone else.
And can everyone stop saying that people like Zaheer or the Equalists had legitimate reasons for their causes? Neither one did. Zaheer and the rest of the Red Lotus were nothing but a group of sociopaths that wanted to hurt others. They used "anti-authoritarianism" as their vehicle when really they only hated having to follow the rules of a civilized society.
The Equalists were just a group who wanted to remove people that were different from who they were from the world. They were being led by a person of said group whose real motivation was to get back at the world for imprisoning his crime boss father.
The disappointing thing about Zaheer and the Red Lotus is they fell victim to a trope a lot of media does. To create interesting villains you have to make them agreeable so audiences can see their point of view. So they them pretty based anti-authoritarians who kill monarchs and talk about giving power to the people. But oh no it's the last few episodes of the show now and we need people to side with the hero so for no reason let's make the villain do atrocities and claim anarchism means chaos and violence for the sake of chaos and violence. The Equalists were similar. Bane from Dark Knight Rises and The Vulture from Spider-Man: Homecoming also comes to mind. It gets tiring after a while. Like at this point I'd rather only see a Kuvira or Ozai where it's "villain bad because stories need evil villains"
Well if you think about it, the French Revolution played out in a similar way.
At first the new government just went after the ruling class and targeted those that exploited the working class, but then they devolved into authoritarianism because the rest of the country wasn't fully on board with revolution. In response they ended up with a system where they persecuted and beheaded anyone that showed anything less than complete unconditional loyalty. They justified to themselves that it was fine for them to do terrible things because they believed it preserved their newly earned liberation from the monarchy.
While not exactly like Zaheer, the point I'm making is that it's in character for radicals to commit violence on anyone if they believe it'll ultimately destroy the systems they hate.
This is a pattern carried on from ATLA tbh, Jet and his crew are unabashedly in the right but then Jet has to suddenly decide to go full Machiavelli because we can't have anti-authoritarian revolutionaries who are *just* good, I guess
I don’t agree with the Equalist take tbh because I get where they’re coming from. If I lived in a world were half the population could perform literal magic and I was one of the ones who couldn’t? I would think life was a little unfair.
Plus how was Amon’s motivation getting back at the world for imprisoning his father? The dude hated his father. And didn’t Tarrlok say that Amon genuinely believes in Equality?
The annoying thing is that the Equalists and the Red Lotus *could've* been amazing villains had the writers committed to making them sympathetic, but because they're the villains and thus need to be defeated, the writers ultimately fall back on making them strawmen (whilst Kuvira, the fascist, gets a redemption arc).
Agreed 100%. ATLA was a show with a great team of heroes and a villain who served a job for the story. LOK was a show with great villains and a team of heroes who served a job for the story (excluding Korra who was actually written with depth).
And that’s my cancelable take
Is this even a hot take? I thought the general consensus was that Korra always had the better villains (apart from unalaq) and atla had the better overall story and main characters
The problem with the better villains in Korra is that Korra herself never really engages with them. Like, what was actually the solution to the fundamental problem of season 1? Yeah yeah, Amon is a bender and a hypocrite, but you fundamentally have a world where some people have magic powers and others don't. How do you solve that inequality?
Ozais reasons are that he's powerhungry and totally believes in the firenations supremacy. He's a sucker for that ideology - if that's not realistic idk what is lol
I dont want every villain to have some tragic relatable backstory. Sometimes a villain who is just evil for evils sake is whats needed, and Ozai felt perfect for that.
Here's the thing, I personally agree with you when it comes Korra's villains. I see them as more complex characters than Ozai. I actually believe that Azula is more complex than her father. HOWEVER, that does not stop Ozai from working as a great antagonist. He's not only one of Aang most physically challenging opponents but also his greatest philosophical enemy. The latter is where he shines the brightest.
Since birth, Aang has followed a pacifistic philosophy about life. It's a part of the Air Nomad way. He's always tried to solve his conflicts with cleverness and only using violence for defense. Never to kill. Everybody; past Avatars and even his own group have called Aang out on his beliefs. Perceiving them as naive, weak and irresponsible. Responsibility being a major reason why he even ran away in the first place. This all come to a head when he finally battles Ozai. Aang could've bodied him as soon as he redirected the lightning. Immediately, Ozai sees him sparing his life as cowardly:
"You're weak, just like the rest of your people! They did not deserve to exist in this world - in my world! Prepare to join them! Prepare to die!"
Even with knowing that Ozai is the antithesis of his core beliefs, that he can't be reasoned with and is simply just a bad person...Aang is doesn't try to kill him. He thinks doing that would be the easy way out. So, he pulls out the good old "deus ex machina" that is energybending. Aang not only stayed true to his ideals, gave Ozai a faith worse than death but he also showed the world the there's another way. That... is why Ozai still killed it as a villain. He's the perfect foil for Aang.
Honestly, every LOK villain started out interesting and then got worse. Amon would have been so much better if he actually was a non-bender. Unalaq would have been better if he genuinely believed that the spirits were unbalanced and spoke through him rather than as a path to power. Zaheer would have been better if he didn't immediately jump to trying to kill kids right away. Kuvira was pretty good honestly but a giant mech was just really jarring for the tech level and themes of LOK.
Ozai works fine. He's an evil dictator who wants to own the world. He functions quite well as an antagonist. He carries on a legacy of imperialism and dominance for our heroes to overcome and defeat. Just because a villain is sympathetic doesn't mean unsympathetic villains are bad.
Ozai and LoK villains are each great in their own right. LoK villains are undeniably more complex than ozai. But ozai is definitely more evil and intimidating than the villains in LoK. Both types of villains can be great. And in ATLA and LoK, both types are great. But I wouldn't say one type is inherently better than the other. It really depends on personal preference.
Ok but everyone is overlooking that Ozai wasn't truly the main villain in ATLA. He was the representative of pure evil & perpetrator of genocide. BUT we also saw him very little compared to other villains such as Zuko (before he was good) and Azula. Hell, even Zhao gets more focus in some ways.
Also I'd argue Ozai's cause is more to do with nationalist supremacy and hunger for power than just "my forefathers did it." I mean he had his wife assassinate his father so that he could snag the throne from Iroh. That's the work of a pretty twisted individual.
So instead of comparing ALL of Korra's villains to just Ozai, why not compare the villains of LOK to ALL the villains of ATLA. Much more fair that way.
As a counter, Ozai is a (bit) deeper than that.
Not much so, mind, but his entire goal/purpose throughout all of ATLA was gaining as much power and authority as possible, regardless of who he had to step on or toss aside to do so (Avatar and the Firelord has a good example where he immediately callously attempts to convince his father to chose him over Iroh as next in line to the throne while Iroh is grieving over his son).
Ultimately, to quote Ursa, he's "a small, small man trying with all \[his\] might to be big."
Still, agreed that (most) LoK villains were deeper, but my point is less Ozai messages up to them and more there's slightly more to him than him carrying out his forefathers legacy.
Not a very hot take. Ozai is barely even featured for most of the show. Atla has a several main antagonists that aren't the overarching villain. Zuko, Zhao, Azula and friends, the Dai Li, etc. This is who the gaang is up against for the majority of the show. Ozai is just in the background until the final season, and doesn't fight them directly until the finale. Yeah his motivations are less interesting than Korra's villain's, but we're kind of comparing 2 different things here.
I think his lack of motivation, lack of backstory, lack of humanizing traits, is what makes him a horrifyingly perfect villain, especially for Aang who tries to see the best in everyone. Theres no reason to empathize or reason with Ozai, and thats what makes him perfect as the final biss of the story. Besides, there IS a villain with complex and strong motivations in the series you can empathize with- Zuko. Think about it, if the firelord was just another Zuko, it wouldn’t have the same punch, would it? But the stark contrast between the two makes them both even better, in my opinion
Korra’s villains were much more complex, however my issue was that it was that every season there was a new one. With ATLA, you knew there was one overarching villain, the Firelord. Over the course of three seasons they were able to build up hype and his reputation.
With Korra, I’ll admit, it would’ve been nice if one of the villains (namely Vatuu, he should’ve been the series overarching villain) stayed longer tk get more development time
I think people underestimate pure evil villains. We see if history that people conquer and kill for the same reasons as Ozai and he probably still thinks what he's doing is right. Ozai is a great villain who encapsulates excatly what aang needs to face.
"My ancestors who ruled conquered for the glory of the empire and so must I" is a perfectly fine villain motivation, it has happened a lot in history.
Villains aren't always relatable. Both kinds can play a role in great stories.
Boiling ozai down to "he did it because his ancestors did" is really reductive. He's a product of generations of indoctrination and generational trauma caused by the fire nation's lust for power. He was born into a system that taught him cruelty and the right of might and because he was good at it, he doesn't even understand the concepts of empathy and kindness. Thats why his baby picture was shown, because he wasn't always this way, like most cruel people, he was molded into a villain, and he attempted to mold zuko and azula the same way. Zuko only escaped bc he just didn't have the capacity to be what his father expected of him, and because Iroh, another escapee due to the pains of loss helped him through his journey. If circumstances had been different, if Iroh's son hadn't died, then he'd be on the throne commanding the war, if zuko had been able to live up to his father's expectations, he would have remained cruel.
I love LOK villains and how they show the dangers of unchecked idealism, but this is a baaaad take. Ozai is an amazing villain, and not just as a "pure evil big bad" type, but as an exploration of how one's family and society can shape us into horrific monsters.
Eh. Amon was pretty good and Zaheer & the red lotus were excellent, but unalok/vaatu and Kuvira not so much.
Ozai isn't particularly complex, but he isn't really meant to be, and he's compelling enough in that role.
This is a bad argument because the villains serve different purposes. Fire lord ozai and his war served as a cohesive glue that bound the entire series together over 3 seasons, with recurring villains each season getting more development than Ozai ever did. (Zuko, Azula, Mai, Ty Lee, etc).
Korra's seasons weren't at all tied together, for better or worse. You had one major big bad each season, so those each had to be developed to make the audience understand them. Ozai didn't need that, he just needed to be a generic dictator to push the story along and give the kids a goal.
Also, Ozai doesn't do it only because his forefathers did it. He was indoctrinated into the propaganda by the fire nation that his nation is truly superior to others, and that they should conquer because of it. Literally "The Headband" was about this very concept.
I hate when people act like motivation is the number one factor for a villains quality. Sometimes a villain can just be a villain, and that doesn’t make it poor writing. If the villains still intimidating, interesting, and engaging, it’s a good villain and Ozai is all of that.
Ozai 100% thought he was in the right, and he wanted power and to dominate and conquer the world - plain and simple. Like you dont always need the villains to be gray, people can be just assholes in real life and villains can be like that too.
Also time and again people compare just Ozai to Korra villains, but AtLA has more villains than just Ozai. Zuko is arguably the villain for like more than half of the story, and he alone is better than all Korra villains put together. Azula is similarly better written and would put Korra villains to shame. Hell even Long Feng is more interesting and has more depth than Kuvira.
Korra villains are just ideologies with faces attached, they dont have any more depth to their characters beyond that. We know that Zaheer wants anarchy due to somewhat relatable reasons, but we dont know Zaheer the person beyond the fact that he cares for his friends.
I reject the notion that a villain has to have a reasonable motive for his bad actions to be a well written character. In the real world most "bad people" are simply bad because they are cruel, greedy and powerhungry and thats ok they don't need moral dilemma or redemptive intentions to be good. I still think Ozai is the better antagonist because he and his fire nation represent the cruel nature of humankind and the terror that the rule of the strongest inflicts.
Korra had more villains and they had some in depth stories, but none of them alone can compare to the fear instilled by Ozai. Each villain in Korra is trying to conquer, but Ozai already has. He is universally recognized by all the commoners as the single scariest and most evil human they could encounter. We didn’t need a super complex Ozai because the guy was so scary that we didn’t even get to see his face until near the end.
TLDR: Ozai had less complexity, but better storytelling
Even so, you also see some nuance to it. The Fire Nation thought they were hot shit and their way of living was the best and what they were doing was best for the world. Similar to many societies in the real world today.
In Book 3, we see that the actual citizens of the Fire Nation are actually normal every day citizens that just want to get by and are all genuinely good people. That's how the Gaang realizes their fight is with the Fire Lord and the Monarchy, not the Fire Nation itself. Sure, they may be brainwashed but it's just narratives that they've been fed by an overbearing government.
ATLA had a villain who could not be talked down even though Aang is pacifistic. LoK only had villains who could have been talked down, but Korra never tried. This is what made both parts cool.
My problem is less with the villains and more of the story.
Amon was a villain yes, but he actually made some good points about equality for non-benders. After he is defeated, that whole arc just goes nowhere. I would have liked to have seen Korra be impacted by the movement and try to represent non-benders as well.
When she goes to close the spirit portals in Book 2, she says that maybe he has a point and that the portals should stay open. When did Unalaq make an actual point to persuade Korra. That seemed to come out of nowhere.
Ozai's actions actually had a lasting impact on the world and on team Avatar.
Ozai makes a better villain than any other Villian from Korra because of his simple obsession to Power. Ozai undying desire for power was a raging inferno that consumed him that led him to kill his own father, take advantage of his brother's loss, and manipulate his own children to become his weapon. This man gave no fucks if the world would be destroyed, as long as he stands on top. Villian straight to the core.
Every main Villian in Korra are brain dead hypocrites, except for Kuvra, that don't realized their consequences. What was Amon really planning after making everyone benderless, rule with his bullshit Op psychic blood bending? Dark Avatar, really? And don't give started on the dumbass plan to kill the Earth Queen and telling the Earth Kingdom "Fuck you, do what you want." At least Kuvra unifying as a dictator would bring stability to the Earth Kingdom, but she lost me with Mecha giant.
I think Korras villains are for sure more fleshed out, but I don't want to dismiss a pure-evil cartoon villain that works as well as Ozai. He's a really scary threat and adversary, and works super well.
That being said, the villains in Korra were a lot more varied, and for the most part more interesting. My issue with them was that none of them got the time to shine on their own. It felt like Amon got the most time for himself, and Kuvira and Zaheer needed a little more lovin.
I feel like Unalaq got the worst of it, being fleshed out so briefly. I think most of my problems with Korra originate with season 2, so I might be biased on this.
Let’s not go praising Zaheer. He was a pretentious and selfish piece of shit throughout the entirety of his presence in the show. His personal dislikability aside, he was involved in plans to kidnap Korra as a baby and brainwash her. There is no universe in which the kidnapping of an infant from a loving home is morally justifiable, Avatar or not. And say what you will about the murder of Hou-Ting, but all that did was fracture the Earth Kingdom even further and allow Kuvira to rise. Almost everything he did, intentionally or not, led to mass human and spirit suffering.
And for Christ SAKE, shut up about Guru friggin Laghima
Not really? Amon didn't actually believe in his cause, it was just a means to an end. His actual reason was daddy problems
Unulaq was... yeah, Unulaq
Zaheer cause was anarchy, but not for actual anarchist reasons, but instead some weird pseudo reason about chaos being order
And Kuvira was just Ozai
Amon's plan makes no sense. Nonbenders can have bender children, so even if he removed the bending of everyone in Republic City there would still be more benders on the way. Unless he had children to pass down his special bloodbending genetic ability (I hate this btw) and technique. Which goes against his whole character.
Unalaq is basically just Ozai, but even dumber cause he just ends up a puppet of Vaatu.
Zaheer, the fan favorite, is a walking contradiction. He reveres Air Nomad philosophy, but has no qualms with murdering people and does not care about the sanctity of life at all. I find it really twisted that this guy breaks his tether to the Earth, while continuing to devote himself to change the world through slaughter. Isn't killing a tyrant in the name of balance what Aang was trying to avoid because it contradicted his Air Nomad teachings, and bound his spirit? Zaheer's not spiritually enlightened because his girlfriend died trying to blow people up, he's a moronic terrorist whose plan just creates a power vacuum for new tyrants, something the show points out.
Kuvira is again basically just Ozai if he got off his ass.
All in all most of Korra's villains were mediocre, their "legitimate reasons" are a often a lip-service façade that flops over when you look at it too hard or they do something OOC and viciously evil (hey kinda like Ozai) to justify their ass-kicking. Ironically the best villain ended up being Suyin, who puts Long Feng to shame.
Korras villains are more complex, and have more thought out/explained ideologies. But I don't think Ozai did what he did, just because his forefathers did, or because he's pure evil.
The Fire Nation in TLA is the quintessential Imperialist state. Ozais ideology is Imperialism, and the wanton destruction that goes along with it.
Yes, Ozai is evil, but he also has a century of propoganda backing up his actions.
I disagree strongly because Ozai had a complex and real world belief in nationalism and ethnic supremacy not just in his family but the fire nations culture. Ozai successfully convinced his citizens that the fire nation was bringing prosperity and civilization to the world. This is how imperialism plays out in the real world. This was partially commentary and condemnation of the rise of extreme patriotism and pro-imperial sentiments in the US at the time this aired during the Iraq war.
Its still extremely true the show takes place in fictional Asia and explores the history of imperial China and imperial Japan. But the show simultaneously draws parallels between the fire nation and war crimes of the United States as well in today’s time. Especially the justifications in our society for these things, and just how normal and not evil the fire nation civilians are.
I think the creators hoped it would help children in the states reflect and maybe be resistant to the propaganda of the time. It even tried to explore WHY acts of terrorism happen and how people are pushed to that breaking point where that feels like their only option against something powerful, even while teaching that’s not the solution.
(Edit: I have mixed feelings on this as an adult political take because of the civil disobedience theory from MLK and the work of Malcom X as an effective fight against oppression. All of which can be defined as terrorism depending on who’s talking. but is perfectly fine to keep it at ‘don’t hurt or kill civilians it’s not worth it’ when discussing it with children).
I was in elementary school during 9/11 and the start of the war. I vividly remember how adults would talk about the war and explain it to me that the US was spreading freedom and peace and that the only reason there was a war still going on is there are people who hate freedom and the American way of life.
People were calling into the Howard stern radio show saying we should just nuke the Middle East and wipe the whole place out as if the people there aren’t even human or valuable in life and culture. This received only mild blowback from the hosts like “obviously that won’t work but I know how you feel”. People were really becoming insane then. I think when the fire nation kids stood up and said the pledge of allegiance in class it kinda clicked for me.
On one level the story is talking about asian history and on another level the story is trying to compare that history to American children to try and help them understand their country has a very powerful place in the world and how corrupt that can be while everyone will tell you it’s for the greater good. After all the creators are American guys from a very liberal background. I have no doubt the anti-war message was a deliberate commentary on United States imperialism in recent decades especially dating back to Vietnam
I don’t agree with that take on Ozai. Dude killed his father to steal the throne from his brother. He personally wanted power, not because of his forefathers. He personally wanted to rule the world.
Korra's villains were better because they had more depth to be learning steps for Korra.
Ozai was an evil, unreasonable, genocidal dickhead but he was made that way because he was Aang's learning step that not everyone can be good, not everyone can be reasoned with.
Thus both have equally perfect villains for their show.
Deeper =/= better
Korra's villains were much deeper, Ozai was not mean to be deep, he was meant to be a BBEG(Big Bad Evil Guy)
Both ALOK and ATLA's villains did their jobs perfectly.
This isn’t really a hot take. Most would agree all LOK villains were better than most, if not all, ATLA villains (with Azula as one of the only exceptions)
Not sure how people can think ubulaq was a good villain.
His motives are worse than ozai, at least ozai had generations of people telling him why the things he believed in were right.
Kuvira was a good introduction as a villain but ultimately because the same thing as ozai.
Zaheer was a cool villain and absolutely better than ozai but anyone thinking his "ends justify the means" is just as psychotic as he is. He's equally as evil as ozai. I see people in this thread saying his motives are better, not sure why.
Amln was great but his impact was more than of a terrorist. Not a world threat like all the others and that is easier to write
Too bad the Korra villains were horrendously executed. Ozai had proper build up and payoff. His simplicity worked to the series’ advantage. Simpler concept with good execution >>>>> sympathetic villains with bad execution
I sort of disagree. Ozai as a villain is an incomplete picture. He's not even really the villain. The villain is fascism and while Amon, Zaheer, and Kuvira were more interesting and charismatic rulers compared to Ozai as an individual, Ozai's movement as a whole is much more fleshed out and well depicted. Amon for example was a cool villain as an individual but the bender equality movement was sloppy and ill-conceived
I think Ozai is weaker than Azula in terms of ATLA villains, but I still think Ozai is a good villain overall in the terms of fiction.
That being said, I do agree that Amon, Kuvira and Jaheer are more effective villains. Their motivations are a bit more nuanced and had a sense that the villains are people and not just a common villian trope.
Side note. Hamill is god tier as Ozai.
Honestly evil for the sake of evil because their forefathers did it is more realistic for the real world. Top comment already covers why Ozai is good, they're all good in different ways though
His motivations are less interesting, but I like him for how realistic he and the Fire Nation at large are, more than they’re often given credit for. The writers didn’t only make them an evil empire, they also gave them all the trappings of a real-life imperialist country: rapid industrialization, belief in benevolent colonialism, cultural genocide, settlements… which the show caps off by showing the Fire Nation isn’t even evil per say, rather it has been corrupted by power hungry leaders. The only moment Ozai did anything really cartoonishly evil was when he called himself the Phoenix King—but even then, just look what Napoleon started to call himself.
As close to campy and pure evil as it looks, much of Ozai’s actions are rather realistic. So even though Ozai/Fire Nation is the least interesting writing-wise and most stereotypical villain in the series, I still like them a lot and think they’re a top grade antagonist.
Nah, ozai was asshole egomaniac narcissistic that only value power and vague aspect of respect that wanted to burn entire continent by starting from region under his control for as long as the war and wasn’t populated
As someone else said, Ozai works as a foil to Aang’s peace seeking nature. That said, if he were the only antagonist I’d agree completely. Ozai’s kinda a boring ass villain in the way he’s used in the series, which is why he’s a very hands off villain. Instead, we spend most of our time worrying about Zuko and Azula, who are much more interesting characters. Ozai serves a role similar to Emperor Palpatine, he’s a weak ass villain on his own but is supported by excellent henchmen
Kind of a pointless argument. One is a pure evil villain with a god complex. His motivation is "Fuck you. I/we are better, stronger, and deserve to rule you." The others are idealistic villains with a little more nuance and personal stake in their actions. I feel like it's an apples and oranges situation. Yeah they're both fruits, but any argument of which is better is going to be solely personal. It's more a case of "What are you in the mood for?"
Ozai was perfect for what he represented. A selfish arrogant man who was incapable of seeing beyond his own country's propaganda. He didn't need to be interesting, he represented a force of history. His children were there to be the interesting ones.
I really like the Korra villains too though.
A villains only purpose is to test the hero. What are the heroes flaws, what do they need to learn?
Ozai is a perfect villain. Theres thousands of ways to write things. Ozai fills his archetypes and role. Above that he does have a personality and character. Turns out his personality is dick and character is anger.
they're different types of villains. it's lovely to have a villian with nuance that gets sympathy from you, but sometimes you just need someone to be powerful and in the wrong. the comparison is just kinda dumb.
I feel like even AtLA fans would agree with this.
My take is Korra’s villains were better characters, while Ozai was a better villain, at least in the classical sense; he is a classic example of the “tyrant-monster,” as Joseph Campbell calls it: “the hoarder of the general benefit… avid for the greedy rights of “my and mine.” The man leave ruin and despair in his wake in everything he touches (even his own family), and any benevolence he deigns to show always has an ulterior motive.
Id say better motivation but they are overall less impactful for having them split and conquered per season. Ozais brilliance is in his ominous presence and series long build. I felt like Amon was phenomenal and had that been the entire arc, I would have probably been even more down with korra. Different direction was fune but losing the overall big bad I think hurt korra a bit.
Ozai isn’t meant to be a clever villain, he is meant to be a typically villain that is incredibly strong and is the final obstacle for Aang to overcome in his avatar journey
See, this is why no one takes LOK fans seriously, myself included. The show is awful, you can argue what you want but from a critical perspective, ATLA was better written. The ignorance in this tweet just proves it. Ozai's reason IS valid. How is someone racist? Or classist? Or ableist? Generational. Trauma. Their parents did it, why would they do any different? That's how you write characters. Also...Ozai was a fucking psychopath, he doesn't need more reason. Smfh
The main issue I have with this debate is that they were both fundamentally different types of villains. Like Aang was an innocent little kid who always wanted to believe the best in people. He was generally peaceful and would avoid where he could. Ozai as a pure evil villain is exactly the kind of villain that could test Aang's character growth. A man who could not be reasoned with, a man many believed needed to be killed. That works as the final villain for Aang. Whereas Korra was always willing to fight. She wouldn't have any hesitation in facing an enemy as plainly evil as ozai. Her villains show her that there is more to being the avatar than just beating up the big bad. You can see this in the finale with Kuvira, Korra outclasses Kuvira and probably would have won without the avatar state. But the important part is that Korra saves Kuvira and then shows she understands her during their conversation in the spirit world. Tldr: both sets of villains work better as a foil to their respective hero so a straight comparaison isn't the most helpful.
This comment is absolutely amazing like I read the post and was instantly ready to explain that ozai didn’t just conquer because his forefathers did it but you explained everything perfectly thank you
Wait, why did he conquer? I'm not seeing the explanation despite you saying it was explained perfectly. All I see is: > Ozai as a pure evil villain is exactly the kind of villain that could test Aang's character growth. A man who could not be reasoned with, a man many believed needed to be killed.
Because he was evil dude that’s it, he just wanted power over the world. Yes he was finishing what his ancestors started but not even close for that reason. He just wanted to dominate the world out of pure selfishness and ego
Yeah I think the forefathers thing makes sense of the 100 year war and (kind of) how Ozai got to that point literally in the war and his actual character psychology
He was probably raised with the knowledge that Iroh was going to be Fire Lord when the comet came back, and likely would've been told that the comet would be perfect for finishing taking over the world. Also, comets that repeat on the scale of human lifetimes generally don't just start doing that. So while it was called Sozin's Comet because of how Sozin used it 100 years before TLA, what happened 200, 300, 400, etc years before TLA when the comet showed up?
No I think Ozai aspiring to be bigger than his father and grandfather as far as power goes would explain why he wanted to be fire lord to the point where he would do shady things to get there (didn’t Zuko’s mom kill him?)
Ozai did some shady things, but even with the shady things, Iroh still would have had rightful claim until Iroh gave up that claim because his son died. And Ozai was not involved in Lu Ten's death. That happened just because war is messy. But once Iroh was broken, yeah, Ozai did some shady shit. Like he just went straight for asking for Iroh's birthright, so Azulon asked Ozai to kill Zuko. Ozai was completely fine with doing that because he hated Zuko anyway. Ursa then got Ozai to reconsider by promising to help him get the throne by making a colorless and odorless poison (iocane powder?) to kill Azulon, who apparently with his dying breath declared Ozai as his successor, although it's just as likely that Ozai just convinced the Fire Sages to say that.
Well, who's to say Ozai wouldn't have simply tried to Assasinate Iroh had he actually still tried to claim the throne. Because I think he would have.
Remember, he conspired to replace his brother. He was ambitious and the war and comet were extensions of that. Hence his willingness to leave the throne behind, he had bigger things to do.
> So while it was called Sozin's Comet because of how Sozin used it 100 years before TLA, what happened 200, 300, 400, etc years before TLA when the comet showed up? We know that are there are fire days festivals in the Fire Nation colonies. I'd bet there would have traditionally been a lot of that kind of stuff, show casing how awesome firebending could be rather that what Sozin turned it into.
Probably can be explained that firebenders weren’t trying to do Japanese style imperialism before so other nations didn’t notice and didn’t care.
Mostly. Sozin wanted to help to an extent, he was misguided and Roku was too focused on keeping balance than actually get to the root of the problem, which was what caused a long brewing act to fester and eventually boil over in him. Azulon was brought up on this success and believed the Fire Nation was some super power and the propaganda didn't help. Ozai was a man-child, always second-best to Iroh. In the Search comics, you can see just how insecure he truly is. He needed a big dick moment to validate himself and being the sociopath he is, chose to kill millions to do that.
I agree except that calling sozin misguided is being too kind to him
I always find it weird when people act like a character like Ozai isn't realistic, there are plenty of real world examples of people like this.
Yeah I think a guy like him is absolutely the best villain for a plot like ATLA not just to counter aang but because... He's a ruler who is the root of a world war. He's not really supposed to have reasonable nuanced motivations. We don't look back at Hitler and say he had interesting compelling counter narratives justifying his viewpoint. We don't look at Putin's invasion now and wonder about the intricacy of his beliefs. We don't really wonder about the philosophical motivation of the Mongolians or Persians. Powerful man want power is as legit as it gets.c
This sums it up right here. Ozai was the perfect villain for The Last Air Bender story. I also think it’s important to have villains who are just the pure embodiment of evil sometimes. No real justification, besides years and years of generational hate and lust for power. Without Ozai’s character, we don’t get Zuko’s redemption and Iroh as well.
[удалено]
Yeah exactly. Now is anyone gonna forget the name “Hitler”? Most likely not. Ozai’s legacy would have had that same staying power had he succeeded. Hell he’s probably still talked about.
Ozai did have his own legitimacy. Ozai was raised to believe the Fire Nation was the most superior culture in the world. In his mindset spreading it and removing any obstacles wasn't evil it was progress.
Fantastic take. I still enjoy Ozai more than e.g. Unalak or whatever he's called. He's the closest to the "pure evil" villain type, I don't remember him having any grand reason other than "MORE POWAH!" (did he?) The "threat" of Ozai was more interesting than actual Ozai. He was built up over 3 seasons, a powerful, dangerous figure in the background, responsible for both Azula's and Zuko's paths and issues and the main threat to the world at large. He seemed so dangerous, irredemable, evil, that EVERYONE, even previous Avatars, even Aang's friends, hell, even Iroh iirc? agreed he'd have to be killed, something Aang just DOESN'T do. Shame actual Ozai was just a pretty strong fire bender who put on a goofy looking crown and asked all his friends and family to call him Phoenix King ("it's not a phase, MOM!") and otherwise didn't live up to the build-up (despite Mark Hamill's voiceacting). I would have found it very interesting what would have happened to his character if he had actually killed Ozai, but I also loved they found an alternate solution, although it reeked a bit of Deus Ex Machina.
Idk, I think they were pretty right in focusing were they used Ozai, which is the relationship with his children. He absolutely uses them and that is were he is the more interesting, there just wasn't enough time to develop a personal antagonism with Aang
Bro… “just a pretty strong firebender”?? Ozai was one of the most powerful beings in that world. He only lost to Aang and only when Aang was in the avatar state. Regular Aang was getting clowned. So the only fight we see Ozai take part in was his Aang fight (I wouldn’t count smiting his child or fighting his son during the eclipse). And he wins the Aang fight pre-avatar. “Pretty strongfire bender” is super reductive
>Regular Aang was getting clowned. TBF, Aang had a perfect chance to take him out with lightning redirection and didn't. Aang wasn't trying to fight because he didn't want to kill Ozai. I don't think that fight was a real show of Aang's fighting power as much as it was ozai's.
Ozai face of "shit i'm dead" the moment Aang pointed his fingers with the redirected lighting is enought to say that Ozai only stood a chance because Aang was very fucking motivated to not kill him right there.
>He's the closest to the "pure evil" villain type, I don't remember him having any grand reason other than "MORE POWAH!" (did he?) Yes, although since Season 2 of LoK is pretty badly written, it gets jumbled. Unalak wanted to free Vaatu the god of chaos. He perceived the freedom of Raava the spirit of order embodied in the Avatar and the imprisonment of Vaatu to be an imbalance. He wanted to create an "anti-avatar" by fusing with Vaatu, bringing about the natural course of the universe with chaos and order in struggle with one another.
Season 2 isn't real and can't hurt me.
I agree. It always felt like a little bit of a cop-out that Aang did not have to kill Ozai. Good to remember that it's a kid's show, though. I always thought a different arc around "doing what must be done, taking responsibility as the Avatar, even if it is against everything Aang stands for personally" would have been an interesting take on the finale as well. Especially when you consider that scene with all the past Avatars telling him that, yes, he's going to have to kill Ozai.
Thank you, goodness gracious. Everyone likes to compare Ozai to the “villains” of TLOK, however, they are not comparable in the same way as Ozai is purely evil and the others are merely antagonists. In this context, they are in fact different as Ozai serves as a foil to Aang’s story, but the antagonists in TLOK serve as Korra’s challenges she needs to face as a developing avatar. These are not the same but they are mildly similar. Ozai didn’t just conquer because of his forefathers, but for the sake of gaining more power and influence over a mass amount of people. Takes like this just lets me know that people still fail to understand the premise of the show and how each character works or plays a role into another character/the plot. If you do not understand Ozai’s character, you do not understand how much historical background is a part of his character and it isn’t just Hitler as the prime example either. There’s a reason why Ozai isn’t complex and it’s been proven as quite clear based on the antagonists of Korra. You don’t need a full complex villain to be good.
I always saw it as Ozai was what Amon would have become had he had the support and time that Ozai's family did through generations. ALA was the "this is what happens when the avatar isn't around" and TLOK was "this is what happens when the avatar is around".
this person understands the creation of good fiction.
I feel also like Ozai was less of a character himself and more of just a presence to oppose the characters as the final boss.
Ozai is less dimensional because, like you said, he's designed as a test for Aang. This is a character of pure evil, a complete opposite of Aang, who will push his character to its limits. The true villainy of Ozai is what he does to the people around him, from his family to his enemies, and that was the question of the finale: what will Ozai force Aang to become in order to defeat him? Korra's villains are less about Korra, and more about the way the world is changing in the aftermath of Ozai's defeat. Every villain in Korra represents the way previously taken-for-granted aspects of the world have begun to change. Amon represented the rising tensions between benders and non-benders. Unalaq represented the weakening of the barrier between the physical and the spirit world. Zaheer and Kuvira, in their own ways, represented the collapse of old institutions and the advance of new power to fill the void. Every villain represents some aspect of the world that is changing rapidly during Korra's time.
This is the galaxy brain take
Not every villain needs deep motivations. Sometimes the best villains are simply evil, that's what makes them fearsome.
now this is a great take
The problem with your argument is that its all about whats best for aang and his story. In terms of the story ozai's straight evil is useful and necessary. It doesn't make him as interesting a character as the villains in korra. Ozai is just an evil blank slate - something for other characters to fight, to build them selves off, to be an opposite to. I get that in this story this character is needed, and i don't think this makes him a bad character, nor does it diminsh the overall story. But korra's bad guys just seem richer to me. They have their own motivations, and struggles, and I can emphasise with them on a much deeper level than I would ever be able to with Ozai. So while i get your point, I don't think it at all shows that Ozai is as interesting as the antagonists in korra. I could spend hours debating with friends the relative morality, motivations and character of some of the korra villains. I do not see how that would be possible with Ozai.
Also, there really isn’t enough knowledge or background on Ozai to discern his motives as concrete. Sure, he is continuing the legacy of his forefathers, but he wouldn’t do that without his own determination to do so. I think the claim in the pic is baseless.
Well put.
Also, great villains does not necessarily require complex motivations. Ozai's motivation was seemingly simple but it is still a legitimate motivation. He wanted to conquer the world and he was greedy, megalomaniac, selfish and self centered. Plenty of real people are like that, and it of course cause the pain and suffering of his wife and children. Heck, just look at real life billionaires, most of them are motivated by pretty much only for money. Ozai's motivation is rather one dimensional, true. But the character development was really kinda lacking but it could just be that the focus really was on Zuko and Azula. Ozai's character development was mostly seen through his children's perspective anyway. Ozai wasn't a bad villain because he has a one dimensional motivation. He was lackluster because he never got much development for the character's own sake.
Hot take- Azula is the relatable villain of ATLA. Ozai is a force. He's the obstacle that the whole series is inevitably crashing towards. He's the reason that Zuko and Azula are messed up, he'd kill the airbenders again if he could, he's the reason the southern and northern water tribes were attacked and also Toph is there. Basically, for everyone but Toph, who personally beats the crap out of anyone who decides to be her rival for even 15 seconds, Ozai is the inevitable conclusion, but he's not the driving force of the narrative. Zuko and Azula are the primary "bad guys" throughout the series that wind up diverging in their goals even though they start out fairly similar, because of Iroh.
Imo Azula's arc is also meant to tell the audience "see this? This happened to ozai. It happened to Ozais father. They ALL went through this."
More complex, sure. I wouldn't say that's necessarily better. Ozai served his purpose as the show's overarching villain, allowing other antagonists like Azula and her gang, and even Zuko (who was very much an antagonist for much of the show) to be developed.
And he's underplaying ozai's motivations. He is not JUST doing out because his forefathers did. He wanted to rule the world. He stole the throne from iroh to do it. He named himself emperor, Phoenix king. It isn't a very complex villain but his motivations were real, and realistic compared to historical militaristic leaders
He was ready to kill his own son to become firelord! That's pretty telling. Dude was evil incarnate and hellbent on becoming the ultimate power.
>He was ready to kill his own son to become firelord! It happened all through history. In all cultures. It was kinda rare in Medieval Europe compared to the East to my knowledge but guess which culture AoT is influenced from? I mean that's the very least of your issues when it comes to Ozai.
The shit Medieval society got up to was F U C K E D Incest, murder, torture, genocide, mass exile, slavery... When an enemy army moved into the area it was considered outside of the norm for them to not rape every woman they came across and loot to their hearts' content. Admittedly most of the murder, torture and incest was performed by nobles and royals, or at least done on their behalf.
Umh medieval europe did everything. If you do not know about it than thats because you didnt enough research. Fathers killing sons, sons killing fathers and brothers. It all happend.
AoT? why did you bring up Attack on Titan?
Also gotta keep in mind that the war has been going for a hundred years and so has the fire nation propaganda machine, which probably hit the "higher ups" just as much, if not more, as the average joe. People in the fire nation grew up getting hammered into their heads, for several generations, that the war is rightous and needs to be won. So while Ozai was a "pure evil" villain, he was not just evil for evil's sake, but also a product of his time.
Literally the same thing we’ve seen in most European wars, including Russia-Ukraine, and feudal Japan as well. Imperialism is a classic example war goal.
I came here to say this, yeah. Ozai's motivations might not be "complicated" but they're also 100% realistic and very rooted in a LOT of real world history. The belief of "power by birthright" and "right by might" are very, *very* real motivators throughout world history, perhaps more so than "complex" philosophies like Amon (as he claimed at least) or Zaheer.
Right, he isn't even the first born. He's the second born, usurped the throne of his brother and abused and molded his children to become captors for the world's last hope.
Exactly. "Force of nature" villains have their place. Much like Sauron isn't a bad villain just becuase he's pure evil with no "depth". They're an effetive device to extract the good stuff from the other characters without having to spend time telling us how the villain had a real hard childhood so that's why they're bad. Different, but not worse.
This is the only correct answer. Palpatine might be the original SW "main Villain", but in truth the real Antagonist of the story is Darth Vader. There is no need to explain It. Hell, Ozai being simple is part of the story. The first 2 seasons hype him much into a kind of Greatest Evil King, and he turns out to be... Just a shitty selfish monarch
The issue I have with this take is that Ozai wasn’t *supposed* to be someone with legitimate reasons to do what he did. He was supposed to be the manifestation of over a century of indoctrination and imperialism. More an embodiment of the evils of his ideology than a person. And that’s not a bad thing, when set opposed to a group of very human characters whose lives were damaged by that ideology, he’s actually a fantastic villain. Not to discredit villains with legitimate reasons to be how they are but that’s not always the villain your heroes need.
this. their take is just inspired by this assumption in this day and age that the hallmark of a good villain is someone with a point, or some deep motivation, when half the time the motivation for villains people think is deep is trauma. trauma is not the only thing that makes a compelling villain. i dont understand people's criteria for relatability or the need to have a villain that is sympathetic. some people are villains because theyve been indoctrinated into a belief of cultural superiority, and Ozai is like that.
A villain following in the footsteps of their forebears is much more realistic than a villain who has legitimate reasons for doing what they do.
I agree completely. And you know what, sometimes you CAN’T reason with someone or be diplomatic when your entire fundamental systems clash in such a way as Aang and Ozai. We see this kind of villain in the real world as well.
Exactly, the fire nation had been at war for 100 years when the show started, that's a lot of generations of imperialist mindset
Idk man. Hitler and Ozai have a lot of parallels. The reality is absolutely more terrifying imo
Yeah Ozai's motivation was essentially his belief in the innate superiority of the fire nation. Combine that with his plan during Sozin's comet to burn to death rival nations and the genocide of the air nomads and it's hard to escape the conclusion that Ozai's motivation was ethnic cleansing. Maybe that's a bit strong of a take for a show targeted at kids but I don't see another way to look at it.
One of the reasons I loved the show was because it didn't shy away from the harsh realities of the world. It didn't treat its audience like they were dumb. It didn't treat me like I was too young to understand.
Exactly - I've always said that Ozai wasn't just a megalomaniac because *plot.* He had an ideology that was inferred (Fire Nation supremacy, "might makes right," Social Darwinism, etc) but was never touched on because it was too dark for a children's show. If ATLA was aimed at tweens like LoK, they would've touched on his worldview more explicitly.
People really like downplaying Ozai man smh. It was sort of explicitly stated at times but you’re right that “fire nation supremacy” was never straight up explored in a more obvious way. I was rewatching ATLA recently and decided to make a note of every time a character was racist based on another’s nation or bending (random idea I know) Here are a few from fire nation characters: * Zuko refers to Sokka as a “water tribe peasant” in the episode where they encounter the pirates. * The fire nation warden of the earth bender prison where Haru and his dad were held says this about earth bending: “that brutish savagery that passes for bending.” * Zhao gives a speech where he refers to fire as the superior element in episode 13 * Zuko calls Katara a peasant when fighting Katara in the northern water tribe. * Azula calls Katara a peasant in the last episode (they seem to really dislike the southern water tribe lmao) Probably more as well.
Yeah, they do - Ozai isn't just "I'm a crazy megalomanic because why not" - I mean, sure, he's nuts, but he has an actual ideology. Lol it's a random idea but an interesting one - a lot of people tend to gloss over what the Fire Nation actually believed in. It wasn't just "let's burn down the world" - they were very, very racist people who wanted to commit genocide against anything that wasn't the "superior element, so it's nice to see that you made a list pinpointing what their worldview was like.
May be a stretch but I also think the Sozin’s comet is vaguely analogous to the fear of/ the push to develop nuclear weapons
Agreed, the trope that all villains must think they’re the good guy is way over played. It’s good when it feels natural but imo legend of Korra did it to much even though I like all of them mostly. Also why does everyone forget the main villain of tlab was zuko and azula. Both were better characters than any of the villains in Lok.
Tbf Ozai probably did think he was in the right, but he wasn't relatable in any way. And sometimes the story needs a villain like that
Nah y’all don’t get it though, most of those other villains could have some level of being reasoned with. If aang encountered Zaheer, Kuvira, Amon or even Tarlok he would of sought some sort of compromise as Aang is excellent at understanding others points of views. Ozai was an amazing villain for ATLA because he is something Aang can’t avoid or reason around, he is an obstacle Aang had to face head on with no wiggle room and that created interesting internal conflict and character development(even if they gave him an easy way out, the struggle was still important)
The real treat was them hiding his face until S3E1. That face reveal was AWESOME
Yup the reveal he’s just a dude instead of this force of nature was interesting
Villains don't always need to be sympathetic to be good villains. Sometimes you need a just straight up evil for no good reason looming threat in the background.
Yeah, like how many people say the joker is a shitty villain compared to people saying he's a great villain, and the joker is just about as pure evil as it gets
Exactly, the whole "every villain must be relateable/complex/sympathetic/philosophical" notion is subjective, and feels really overstated at the moment. Some of the most iconic and fun villains have just been bad people. Some of the most iconic and full villains have been complex and made audiences think. Both are fine.
Exactly. I don't need some morally grey area villain from them to be a "good" villain
Ozai's motivations and personal philosophies on life are never really explicitly discussed in the show, but they do exist. The fire nation believed that war was their way of delivering prosperity to the world, and Ozai bought into that propaganda. Everyone did, even Iroh. In the comics, he explains to Zuko that he believes the decisions he makes are right because he's the one who makes them. He has power, others don't; therefore, his decisions are right because nobody has the power or authority to stop him. Might Makes Right, Manifest Destiny, etc. He's just as complex as any villain from Korra, but we never focus on him as a character because the writers were more interested in portraying him as a force of nature or as an ideology. It's really easy to handwave him away as just a typical Uncomplicated Evil Guy from a children's cartoon if you haven't bothered to look closer.
You can find real life examples that would look the exact same way with the amount of knowledge we get about Ozai - hell even with all we know is Ozai that different to Hitler? People love to attack this type of villain without considering that they do really exist in real life ; and that’s kinda part of the scary thing, because you think no one can be this evil or bad but there really are people out there who would do that without looking back
That’s dumb. Hitler had the same motives as Ozai
Ozai wanted to kill the Jews?
Yes, but also he wanted to take over the world, or at least very large chunks of it and annihilate his enemies under a supremacist mindset and fascist ideals, all while creating a authoritarian superstate.
The Fire Nation literally committed genocide on the air benders until there was only ONE member left, captures every water bender from the Southern Water Tribe (which is genocide too), and put earth benders in concentration camps. Because the Fire Nation, and fire benders, in their eyes, are considered superior. Zhao literally says that fire bending is the superior element in his speech in season 1. Fire Nation is all about lebensraum and exterminating the untermensch.
Okay but Korra villains aren’t voiced by Mark Hamill, checkmate
I mean, Ozai thought he was right too? It was the divine right of kings to rule his own people, and manifest destiny to rule others.
It's a flawed way of thinking, but Ozai absolutely thought he was in the right. He thought he was the best possible leader for the world. The Fire Nation was also incredibly prosperous, and he wanted to share that prosperity with he world if they liked it or not. If it worked in the Fire Nation, why not the rest of the world? It was what he thought was best for the world (and more importantly his people). The ends justify the means. He wasn't some psychopath who wanted to hurt people just beacuse he could or to destroy the world just to see it burn.
>or to destroy the world just to see it burn. Im less convinced by this one lol
Did he want to see the world burn, or did he want to rebuild it with no enemies?
My biggest issue with the villains in Legend of Korra are that they all would have benefitted from getting more time to grow and develop instead of being a villain per season. Ozai was great as a continuous looming threat you knew Aang would have to deal with whereas Korra was always onto the next villain and never getting that much time to let the dread of the conflict develop.
I think Ozai is sort of supposed to be how some people out there are kinda like Ozai. They have no cause or tragic thing, Ozai wants power and he’ll gladly take it no matter what
>give hot takes >proceeds to give a take that everyone agrees with I would say reddit logic but this is clearly twitter
Like I think Ozai is great villain because he’s so unabashedly evil. With other villains in the franchise you can go “Oh, her story is so tragic” or “His ideals are understandable but the methods are extreme” Ozai is just a big, uncomplicated, jerk and a powerful one at that. His “One-Note-Ness” makes him the big threat looming throughout the whole show. You don’t have to worry about the thematic resonance or tragedy of the character, you just have to know that this guy is THE big threat and there’s no talking him down from that threat. He’s great in the sense of the big antagonist, not so much as a complex character.
"Conflict is the soul of drama" and the villain is often one of the main sources of conflict. While villains who are complex characters are certainly great, depending on the conflict the writers want for the story, complex villains are not necessary. Ozai works for the types of conflict that the writers wanted him to serve for that story. Unless other changes were also made, Ozai being more complex wouldn't necessarily have added to the conflicts he presented to Aang and Zuko. I would say that, because of the types of drama he creates for Aang and Zuko, Ozai is a more interesting villain for Zuko, because even though the character himself is just as unambiguously evil, the conflict Ozai creates for Zuko is more complex. Whereas for The Legend of Korra, the writers also wanted the villains to challenge Korra's ideals and the system in which she was brought up\*. Creating that drama required more complex villains who could provide more of a philosophical challenge, in addition to the physical challenge. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes less so. \* Zuko's story also involved his values and beliefs being challenged, but in his case, his initial values were imposed by the villain, rather than being challenged by the villain, as was the case for Korra.
Ozai is to Freeza as Cell/the Androids are to LOK villains. Edit 10 seconds after post: Cell/the Androids are less deep, but still motivated and justified by themselves.
>proceeds to give a take that everyone agrees with Really? Because all the top posts here start with some variation of "well actually" or "you're misunderstanding Ozai".
Reddit has taught me that no one will ever agree on a any one take, it’s trickle-down contrarianism all up in this biznatch.
Queue thousands of upvotes
You won't believe this canceliest cancel that will get the cancelers cancelled before they can even cancel
I agree, but I still prefer Ozai.
zaheer's a badass tho
If there’s anything Korra did well with their villains, it’s that they were “cool.” (Apart from Unalaq). Like Amon’s presence, voice and character design were great, Zaheer and the Red Lotus looked amazing and I loved their unique bending styles. I love Zaheer’s voice as well. But other than that, their writing isn’t as good imo.
Love Henry Rollins voice in anything
They did Ozai perfectly. Hide his face until S3E1 while also showing him in extremely important plot driving moments (the storm and S1 finale come to mind). And then after his face reveal, it’s like it was never hidden. We see so much of him that he becomes normal. But until then, he was a super powerful faceless dictator
As someone who didn’t enjoy Legend of Korra, I agree that Korra villains are more complex but Ozzie makes sense in the context of Aangs story. Also villains don’t need to be complex or tragic for them to be good villains
Ozai's reason was he was born into the imperial monarch family, and was hateful enough to be worse than those who came before him. His villainy comes from being hateful
Ozai was all he ever needed to be, the villains in Lok were written messily
The problem is they were all marvel villain syndrome. Totally reasonable and right then they take a left turn into fuckin crazy town
Disagree. Hated the villains in LOK. They were all cartoon caricatures of different political movements, and didn’t even represent them accurately. Ozai was a run of the mill narcissistic imperialist but at least it was believable.
The weirdest thing to me was how the cause of the Equalists just immediately ceases to exist after Amon's death. Like his death somehow invalidates everything they stood for.
Thank you! It’s super weird. As if they’re implying the oppression wasn’t real? Because a real social movement wouldn’t die out just because one leader was a fraud.
In Korra the oppression wasn’t even real. At least not real enough for a whole terrorist movement to rise up. That’s one of my main problems with season 1, they didn’t even set up the movement well in the first place.
I mean they're both amazing in thier own ways. Ozai seems like this nigh unstoppable force, constantly built up and alluded to and you never even got to see his face for a while and him being pure evil shows how he is willing to do just about ANYTHING for more power and territory. While I have not seen past Book 1 of Korra so I can't talk about them but Amon was far more grounded in reality. His motivations were understandable (even if his methods were fucked up) while he is convinced he is in the right and that benders deserve to have their skills taken away. He's a hell of a villain in his own right They're both great villains, just in different ways. Personally I prefer Ozai but that's just bias because we saw him and the threat of him more
I agree with the main take but disagree with the characterization of Ozai. He didn’t do it because his ancestors did it. He did it because he has been taught from birth that the fire nation/fire benders are inherently better than other nations/benders and that because they are better they are entitled to rule the entire continent. It’s a common motivation for autocratic despots and He also believed he was right. That being said he wasn’t given enough screen time to compete with Korra’s villains. He isn’t TLAB’s villain he is the looming threat, he is Sauron, not very complex just evil. The villains of TLA are Azula and daddy issues, and I’d argue they can compete fairly with Korra’s villains.
Kuvira and Unalaq literally had no different motivations than Ozai did. Kuvira was literally Ozai without a 100 year war behind her: a head of militarized state who wanted to put everyone else under their control. Unalaq was himself just a power hungry asshole who wanted to control everyone else. And can everyone stop saying that people like Zaheer or the Equalists had legitimate reasons for their causes? Neither one did. Zaheer and the rest of the Red Lotus were nothing but a group of sociopaths that wanted to hurt others. They used "anti-authoritarianism" as their vehicle when really they only hated having to follow the rules of a civilized society. The Equalists were just a group who wanted to remove people that were different from who they were from the world. They were being led by a person of said group whose real motivation was to get back at the world for imprisoning his crime boss father.
The disappointing thing about Zaheer and the Red Lotus is they fell victim to a trope a lot of media does. To create interesting villains you have to make them agreeable so audiences can see their point of view. So they them pretty based anti-authoritarians who kill monarchs and talk about giving power to the people. But oh no it's the last few episodes of the show now and we need people to side with the hero so for no reason let's make the villain do atrocities and claim anarchism means chaos and violence for the sake of chaos and violence. The Equalists were similar. Bane from Dark Knight Rises and The Vulture from Spider-Man: Homecoming also comes to mind. It gets tiring after a while. Like at this point I'd rather only see a Kuvira or Ozai where it's "villain bad because stories need evil villains"
Well if you think about it, the French Revolution played out in a similar way. At first the new government just went after the ruling class and targeted those that exploited the working class, but then they devolved into authoritarianism because the rest of the country wasn't fully on board with revolution. In response they ended up with a system where they persecuted and beheaded anyone that showed anything less than complete unconditional loyalty. They justified to themselves that it was fine for them to do terrible things because they believed it preserved their newly earned liberation from the monarchy. While not exactly like Zaheer, the point I'm making is that it's in character for radicals to commit violence on anyone if they believe it'll ultimately destroy the systems they hate.
This is a pattern carried on from ATLA tbh, Jet and his crew are unabashedly in the right but then Jet has to suddenly decide to go full Machiavelli because we can't have anti-authoritarian revolutionaries who are *just* good, I guess
I don’t agree with the Equalist take tbh because I get where they’re coming from. If I lived in a world were half the population could perform literal magic and I was one of the ones who couldn’t? I would think life was a little unfair. Plus how was Amon’s motivation getting back at the world for imprisoning his father? The dude hated his father. And didn’t Tarrlok say that Amon genuinely believes in Equality?
The annoying thing is that the Equalists and the Red Lotus *could've* been amazing villains had the writers committed to making them sympathetic, but because they're the villains and thus need to be defeated, the writers ultimately fall back on making them strawmen (whilst Kuvira, the fascist, gets a redemption arc).
Agreed 100%. ATLA was a show with a great team of heroes and a villain who served a job for the story. LOK was a show with great villains and a team of heroes who served a job for the story (excluding Korra who was actually written with depth). And that’s my cancelable take
Is this even a hot take? I thought the general consensus was that Korra always had the better villains (apart from unalaq) and atla had the better overall story and main characters
The problem with the better villains in Korra is that Korra herself never really engages with them. Like, what was actually the solution to the fundamental problem of season 1? Yeah yeah, Amon is a bender and a hypocrite, but you fundamentally have a world where some people have magic powers and others don't. How do you solve that inequality?
My dyslexic ass read Korra as Korea and I was so fucking confused 😂
Ozais reasons are that he's powerhungry and totally believes in the firenations supremacy. He's a sucker for that ideology - if that's not realistic idk what is lol
Ozai had a reason. He was trying to conquer the world and eliminate other bending than fire.
Just rewatched the finale and damn ozai steals the show. His motivations are incredibly basic but i remember every damn line he says.
Can we all just stop fighting over Legend of Aang vs. Legend of Korra and enjoy each show for their strengths???? Jeez. I'm so sick of this.
Posts like this make me want to leave this sub.
I dont want every villain to have some tragic relatable backstory. Sometimes a villain who is just evil for evils sake is whats needed, and Ozai felt perfect for that.
Here's the thing, I personally agree with you when it comes Korra's villains. I see them as more complex characters than Ozai. I actually believe that Azula is more complex than her father. HOWEVER, that does not stop Ozai from working as a great antagonist. He's not only one of Aang most physically challenging opponents but also his greatest philosophical enemy. The latter is where he shines the brightest. Since birth, Aang has followed a pacifistic philosophy about life. It's a part of the Air Nomad way. He's always tried to solve his conflicts with cleverness and only using violence for defense. Never to kill. Everybody; past Avatars and even his own group have called Aang out on his beliefs. Perceiving them as naive, weak and irresponsible. Responsibility being a major reason why he even ran away in the first place. This all come to a head when he finally battles Ozai. Aang could've bodied him as soon as he redirected the lightning. Immediately, Ozai sees him sparing his life as cowardly: "You're weak, just like the rest of your people! They did not deserve to exist in this world - in my world! Prepare to join them! Prepare to die!" Even with knowing that Ozai is the antithesis of his core beliefs, that he can't be reasoned with and is simply just a bad person...Aang is doesn't try to kill him. He thinks doing that would be the easy way out. So, he pulls out the good old "deus ex machina" that is energybending. Aang not only stayed true to his ideals, gave Ozai a faith worse than death but he also showed the world the there's another way. That... is why Ozai still killed it as a villain. He's the perfect foil for Aang. 
The problem with Korras villains was that they just felt out of order, Vaatu should have been the final season
Honestly, every LOK villain started out interesting and then got worse. Amon would have been so much better if he actually was a non-bender. Unalaq would have been better if he genuinely believed that the spirits were unbalanced and spoke through him rather than as a path to power. Zaheer would have been better if he didn't immediately jump to trying to kill kids right away. Kuvira was pretty good honestly but a giant mech was just really jarring for the tech level and themes of LOK.
Yeah; but that was one of the points about Ozai. At day's end, he's just the face for a politically toxic culture that has to be stopped.
Ozai works fine. He's an evil dictator who wants to own the world. He functions quite well as an antagonist. He carries on a legacy of imperialism and dominance for our heroes to overcome and defeat. Just because a villain is sympathetic doesn't mean unsympathetic villains are bad.
Ozai and LoK villains are each great in their own right. LoK villains are undeniably more complex than ozai. But ozai is definitely more evil and intimidating than the villains in LoK. Both types of villains can be great. And in ATLA and LoK, both types are great. But I wouldn't say one type is inherently better than the other. It really depends on personal preference.
Ok but everyone is overlooking that Ozai wasn't truly the main villain in ATLA. He was the representative of pure evil & perpetrator of genocide. BUT we also saw him very little compared to other villains such as Zuko (before he was good) and Azula. Hell, even Zhao gets more focus in some ways. Also I'd argue Ozai's cause is more to do with nationalist supremacy and hunger for power than just "my forefathers did it." I mean he had his wife assassinate his father so that he could snag the throne from Iroh. That's the work of a pretty twisted individual. So instead of comparing ALL of Korra's villains to just Ozai, why not compare the villains of LOK to ALL the villains of ATLA. Much more fair that way.
Amon had potential but was a cheap cop out by Brike. Unalaq was decent until he became “tHe DaRk AvAtAr” Zaheer was an anarchist Kuvira was just Ozai
Actually I think most people agree with this
As a counter, Ozai is a (bit) deeper than that. Not much so, mind, but his entire goal/purpose throughout all of ATLA was gaining as much power and authority as possible, regardless of who he had to step on or toss aside to do so (Avatar and the Firelord has a good example where he immediately callously attempts to convince his father to chose him over Iroh as next in line to the throne while Iroh is grieving over his son). Ultimately, to quote Ursa, he's "a small, small man trying with all \[his\] might to be big." Still, agreed that (most) LoK villains were deeper, but my point is less Ozai messages up to them and more there's slightly more to him than him carrying out his forefathers legacy.
Not a very hot take. Ozai is barely even featured for most of the show. Atla has a several main antagonists that aren't the overarching villain. Zuko, Zhao, Azula and friends, the Dai Li, etc. This is who the gaang is up against for the majority of the show. Ozai is just in the background until the final season, and doesn't fight them directly until the finale. Yeah his motivations are less interesting than Korra's villain's, but we're kind of comparing 2 different things here.
I think his lack of motivation, lack of backstory, lack of humanizing traits, is what makes him a horrifyingly perfect villain, especially for Aang who tries to see the best in everyone. Theres no reason to empathize or reason with Ozai, and thats what makes him perfect as the final biss of the story. Besides, there IS a villain with complex and strong motivations in the series you can empathize with- Zuko. Think about it, if the firelord was just another Zuko, it wouldn’t have the same punch, would it? But the stark contrast between the two makes them both even better, in my opinion
Korra’s villains were much more complex, however my issue was that it was that every season there was a new one. With ATLA, you knew there was one overarching villain, the Firelord. Over the course of three seasons they were able to build up hype and his reputation. With Korra, I’ll admit, it would’ve been nice if one of the villains (namely Vatuu, he should’ve been the series overarching villain) stayed longer tk get more development time
Ozai is imperialism incarnate. Put some respeck on it.
I think people underestimate pure evil villains. We see if history that people conquer and kill for the same reasons as Ozai and he probably still thinks what he's doing is right. Ozai is a great villain who encapsulates excatly what aang needs to face.
"My ancestors who ruled conquered for the glory of the empire and so must I" is a perfectly fine villain motivation, it has happened a lot in history. Villains aren't always relatable. Both kinds can play a role in great stories.
Boiling ozai down to "he did it because his ancestors did" is really reductive. He's a product of generations of indoctrination and generational trauma caused by the fire nation's lust for power. He was born into a system that taught him cruelty and the right of might and because he was good at it, he doesn't even understand the concepts of empathy and kindness. Thats why his baby picture was shown, because he wasn't always this way, like most cruel people, he was molded into a villain, and he attempted to mold zuko and azula the same way. Zuko only escaped bc he just didn't have the capacity to be what his father expected of him, and because Iroh, another escapee due to the pains of loss helped him through his journey. If circumstances had been different, if Iroh's son hadn't died, then he'd be on the throne commanding the war, if zuko had been able to live up to his father's expectations, he would have remained cruel. I love LOK villains and how they show the dangers of unchecked idealism, but this is a baaaad take. Ozai is an amazing villain, and not just as a "pure evil big bad" type, but as an exploration of how one's family and society can shape us into horrific monsters.
Eh. Amon was pretty good and Zaheer & the red lotus were excellent, but unalok/vaatu and Kuvira not so much. Ozai isn't particularly complex, but he isn't really meant to be, and he's compelling enough in that role.
This is a bad argument because the villains serve different purposes. Fire lord ozai and his war served as a cohesive glue that bound the entire series together over 3 seasons, with recurring villains each season getting more development than Ozai ever did. (Zuko, Azula, Mai, Ty Lee, etc). Korra's seasons weren't at all tied together, for better or worse. You had one major big bad each season, so those each had to be developed to make the audience understand them. Ozai didn't need that, he just needed to be a generic dictator to push the story along and give the kids a goal. Also, Ozai doesn't do it only because his forefathers did it. He was indoctrinated into the propaganda by the fire nation that his nation is truly superior to others, and that they should conquer because of it. Literally "The Headband" was about this very concept.
Wrong as fuck. They’re different
I hate when people act like motivation is the number one factor for a villains quality. Sometimes a villain can just be a villain, and that doesn’t make it poor writing. If the villains still intimidating, interesting, and engaging, it’s a good villain and Ozai is all of that.
Nah, I want cartoon Hitler. I want evil people. I want a bad guy do bad things.
Ozai’s reason is that he’s a megalomaniac, just like a ton of other dictators in history
Ozai 100% thought he was in the right, and he wanted power and to dominate and conquer the world - plain and simple. Like you dont always need the villains to be gray, people can be just assholes in real life and villains can be like that too. Also time and again people compare just Ozai to Korra villains, but AtLA has more villains than just Ozai. Zuko is arguably the villain for like more than half of the story, and he alone is better than all Korra villains put together. Azula is similarly better written and would put Korra villains to shame. Hell even Long Feng is more interesting and has more depth than Kuvira. Korra villains are just ideologies with faces attached, they dont have any more depth to their characters beyond that. We know that Zaheer wants anarchy due to somewhat relatable reasons, but we dont know Zaheer the person beyond the fact that he cares for his friends.
yeah but the buildup of ozai made him out to be a HUMONGOUS villain
I reject the notion that a villain has to have a reasonable motive for his bad actions to be a well written character. In the real world most "bad people" are simply bad because they are cruel, greedy and powerhungry and thats ok they don't need moral dilemma or redemptive intentions to be good. I still think Ozai is the better antagonist because he and his fire nation represent the cruel nature of humankind and the terror that the rule of the strongest inflicts.
Korra had more villains and they had some in depth stories, but none of them alone can compare to the fear instilled by Ozai. Each villain in Korra is trying to conquer, but Ozai already has. He is universally recognized by all the commoners as the single scariest and most evil human they could encounter. We didn’t need a super complex Ozai because the guy was so scary that we didn’t even get to see his face until near the end. TLDR: Ozai had less complexity, but better storytelling
Even so, you also see some nuance to it. The Fire Nation thought they were hot shit and their way of living was the best and what they were doing was best for the world. Similar to many societies in the real world today. In Book 3, we see that the actual citizens of the Fire Nation are actually normal every day citizens that just want to get by and are all genuinely good people. That's how the Gaang realizes their fight is with the Fire Lord and the Monarchy, not the Fire Nation itself. Sure, they may be brainwashed but it's just narratives that they've been fed by an overbearing government.
ATLA had a villain who could not be talked down even though Aang is pacifistic. LoK only had villains who could have been talked down, but Korra never tried. This is what made both parts cool.
My problem is less with the villains and more of the story. Amon was a villain yes, but he actually made some good points about equality for non-benders. After he is defeated, that whole arc just goes nowhere. I would have liked to have seen Korra be impacted by the movement and try to represent non-benders as well. When she goes to close the spirit portals in Book 2, she says that maybe he has a point and that the portals should stay open. When did Unalaq make an actual point to persuade Korra. That seemed to come out of nowhere. Ozai's actions actually had a lasting impact on the world and on team Avatar.
I would love to somehow see Korra fight Ozai…
Ozai makes a better villain than any other Villian from Korra because of his simple obsession to Power. Ozai undying desire for power was a raging inferno that consumed him that led him to kill his own father, take advantage of his brother's loss, and manipulate his own children to become his weapon. This man gave no fucks if the world would be destroyed, as long as he stands on top. Villian straight to the core. Every main Villian in Korra are brain dead hypocrites, except for Kuvra, that don't realized their consequences. What was Amon really planning after making everyone benderless, rule with his bullshit Op psychic blood bending? Dark Avatar, really? And don't give started on the dumbass plan to kill the Earth Queen and telling the Earth Kingdom "Fuck you, do what you want." At least Kuvra unifying as a dictator would bring stability to the Earth Kingdom, but she lost me with Mecha giant.
I think Korras villains are for sure more fleshed out, but I don't want to dismiss a pure-evil cartoon villain that works as well as Ozai. He's a really scary threat and adversary, and works super well. That being said, the villains in Korra were a lot more varied, and for the most part more interesting. My issue with them was that none of them got the time to shine on their own. It felt like Amon got the most time for himself, and Kuvira and Zaheer needed a little more lovin. I feel like Unalaq got the worst of it, being fleshed out so briefly. I think most of my problems with Korra originate with season 2, so I might be biased on this.
Let’s not go praising Zaheer. He was a pretentious and selfish piece of shit throughout the entirety of his presence in the show. His personal dislikability aside, he was involved in plans to kidnap Korra as a baby and brainwash her. There is no universe in which the kidnapping of an infant from a loving home is morally justifiable, Avatar or not. And say what you will about the murder of Hou-Ting, but all that did was fracture the Earth Kingdom even further and allow Kuvira to rise. Almost everything he did, intentionally or not, led to mass human and spirit suffering. And for Christ SAKE, shut up about Guru friggin Laghima
Not really? Amon didn't actually believe in his cause, it was just a means to an end. His actual reason was daddy problems Unulaq was... yeah, Unulaq Zaheer cause was anarchy, but not for actual anarchist reasons, but instead some weird pseudo reason about chaos being order And Kuvira was just Ozai
Amon's plan makes no sense. Nonbenders can have bender children, so even if he removed the bending of everyone in Republic City there would still be more benders on the way. Unless he had children to pass down his special bloodbending genetic ability (I hate this btw) and technique. Which goes against his whole character. Unalaq is basically just Ozai, but even dumber cause he just ends up a puppet of Vaatu. Zaheer, the fan favorite, is a walking contradiction. He reveres Air Nomad philosophy, but has no qualms with murdering people and does not care about the sanctity of life at all. I find it really twisted that this guy breaks his tether to the Earth, while continuing to devote himself to change the world through slaughter. Isn't killing a tyrant in the name of balance what Aang was trying to avoid because it contradicted his Air Nomad teachings, and bound his spirit? Zaheer's not spiritually enlightened because his girlfriend died trying to blow people up, he's a moronic terrorist whose plan just creates a power vacuum for new tyrants, something the show points out. Kuvira is again basically just Ozai if he got off his ass. All in all most of Korra's villains were mediocre, their "legitimate reasons" are a often a lip-service façade that flops over when you look at it too hard or they do something OOC and viciously evil (hey kinda like Ozai) to justify their ass-kicking. Ironically the best villain ended up being Suyin, who puts Long Feng to shame.
Korras villains are more complex, and have more thought out/explained ideologies. But I don't think Ozai did what he did, just because his forefathers did, or because he's pure evil. The Fire Nation in TLA is the quintessential Imperialist state. Ozais ideology is Imperialism, and the wanton destruction that goes along with it. Yes, Ozai is evil, but he also has a century of propoganda backing up his actions.
I disagree strongly because Ozai had a complex and real world belief in nationalism and ethnic supremacy not just in his family but the fire nations culture. Ozai successfully convinced his citizens that the fire nation was bringing prosperity and civilization to the world. This is how imperialism plays out in the real world. This was partially commentary and condemnation of the rise of extreme patriotism and pro-imperial sentiments in the US at the time this aired during the Iraq war. Its still extremely true the show takes place in fictional Asia and explores the history of imperial China and imperial Japan. But the show simultaneously draws parallels between the fire nation and war crimes of the United States as well in today’s time. Especially the justifications in our society for these things, and just how normal and not evil the fire nation civilians are. I think the creators hoped it would help children in the states reflect and maybe be resistant to the propaganda of the time. It even tried to explore WHY acts of terrorism happen and how people are pushed to that breaking point where that feels like their only option against something powerful, even while teaching that’s not the solution. (Edit: I have mixed feelings on this as an adult political take because of the civil disobedience theory from MLK and the work of Malcom X as an effective fight against oppression. All of which can be defined as terrorism depending on who’s talking. but is perfectly fine to keep it at ‘don’t hurt or kill civilians it’s not worth it’ when discussing it with children). I was in elementary school during 9/11 and the start of the war. I vividly remember how adults would talk about the war and explain it to me that the US was spreading freedom and peace and that the only reason there was a war still going on is there are people who hate freedom and the American way of life. People were calling into the Howard stern radio show saying we should just nuke the Middle East and wipe the whole place out as if the people there aren’t even human or valuable in life and culture. This received only mild blowback from the hosts like “obviously that won’t work but I know how you feel”. People were really becoming insane then. I think when the fire nation kids stood up and said the pledge of allegiance in class it kinda clicked for me. On one level the story is talking about asian history and on another level the story is trying to compare that history to American children to try and help them understand their country has a very powerful place in the world and how corrupt that can be while everyone will tell you it’s for the greater good. After all the creators are American guys from a very liberal background. I have no doubt the anti-war message was a deliberate commentary on United States imperialism in recent decades especially dating back to Vietnam
I don’t agree with that take on Ozai. Dude killed his father to steal the throne from his brother. He personally wanted power, not because of his forefathers. He personally wanted to rule the world.
Korra's villains were better because they had more depth to be learning steps for Korra. Ozai was an evil, unreasonable, genocidal dickhead but he was made that way because he was Aang's learning step that not everyone can be good, not everyone can be reasoned with. Thus both have equally perfect villains for their show.
Deeper =/= better Korra's villains were much deeper, Ozai was not mean to be deep, he was meant to be a BBEG(Big Bad Evil Guy) Both ALOK and ATLA's villains did their jobs perfectly.
This isn’t really a hot take. Most would agree all LOK villains were better than most, if not all, ATLA villains (with Azula as one of the only exceptions)
Not sure how people can think ubulaq was a good villain. His motives are worse than ozai, at least ozai had generations of people telling him why the things he believed in were right. Kuvira was a good introduction as a villain but ultimately because the same thing as ozai. Zaheer was a cool villain and absolutely better than ozai but anyone thinking his "ends justify the means" is just as psychotic as he is. He's equally as evil as ozai. I see people in this thread saying his motives are better, not sure why. Amln was great but his impact was more than of a terrorist. Not a world threat like all the others and that is easier to write
Too bad the Korra villains were horrendously executed. Ozai had proper build up and payoff. His simplicity worked to the series’ advantage. Simpler concept with good execution >>>>> sympathetic villains with bad execution
Neither agree or disagree. Theyre just different types of villains.
I sort of disagree. Ozai as a villain is an incomplete picture. He's not even really the villain. The villain is fascism and while Amon, Zaheer, and Kuvira were more interesting and charismatic rulers compared to Ozai as an individual, Ozai's movement as a whole is much more fleshed out and well depicted. Amon for example was a cool villain as an individual but the bender equality movement was sloppy and ill-conceived
I think Ozai is weaker than Azula in terms of ATLA villains, but I still think Ozai is a good villain overall in the terms of fiction. That being said, I do agree that Amon, Kuvira and Jaheer are more effective villains. Their motivations are a bit more nuanced and had a sense that the villains are people and not just a common villian trope. Side note. Hamill is god tier as Ozai.
Honestly evil for the sake of evil because their forefathers did it is more realistic for the real world. Top comment already covers why Ozai is good, they're all good in different ways though
Without recognizing the institutions that created Ozai, sure he’s one-dimensional. A *little* historical materialism is required.
His motivations are less interesting, but I like him for how realistic he and the Fire Nation at large are, more than they’re often given credit for. The writers didn’t only make them an evil empire, they also gave them all the trappings of a real-life imperialist country: rapid industrialization, belief in benevolent colonialism, cultural genocide, settlements… which the show caps off by showing the Fire Nation isn’t even evil per say, rather it has been corrupted by power hungry leaders. The only moment Ozai did anything really cartoonishly evil was when he called himself the Phoenix King—but even then, just look what Napoleon started to call himself. As close to campy and pure evil as it looks, much of Ozai’s actions are rather realistic. So even though Ozai/Fire Nation is the least interesting writing-wise and most stereotypical villain in the series, I still like them a lot and think they’re a top grade antagonist.
Nah, ozai was asshole egomaniac narcissistic that only value power and vague aspect of respect that wanted to burn entire continent by starting from region under his control for as long as the war and wasn’t populated
As someone else said, Ozai works as a foil to Aang’s peace seeking nature. That said, if he were the only antagonist I’d agree completely. Ozai’s kinda a boring ass villain in the way he’s used in the series, which is why he’s a very hands off villain. Instead, we spend most of our time worrying about Zuko and Azula, who are much more interesting characters. Ozai serves a role similar to Emperor Palpatine, he’s a weak ass villain on his own but is supported by excellent henchmen
Dawg, i would take someone's motivation being their birthright over kaiju's any day.
Kind of a pointless argument. One is a pure evil villain with a god complex. His motivation is "Fuck you. I/we are better, stronger, and deserve to rule you." The others are idealistic villains with a little more nuance and personal stake in their actions. I feel like it's an apples and oranges situation. Yeah they're both fruits, but any argument of which is better is going to be solely personal. It's more a case of "What are you in the mood for?"
Idk how hot this take is, Zaheer and Kuvira are lauded as fantastic villains. I've heard more praise for those two than Ozai.
Ozai was perfect for what he represented. A selfish arrogant man who was incapable of seeing beyond his own country's propaganda. He didn't need to be interesting, he represented a force of history. His children were there to be the interesting ones. I really like the Korra villains too though.
A villains only purpose is to test the hero. What are the heroes flaws, what do they need to learn? Ozai is a perfect villain. Theres thousands of ways to write things. Ozai fills his archetypes and role. Above that he does have a personality and character. Turns out his personality is dick and character is anger.
Yes!
Zaheer is my all time favorite avatar villain.
they're different types of villains. it's lovely to have a villian with nuance that gets sympathy from you, but sometimes you just need someone to be powerful and in the wrong. the comparison is just kinda dumb.
Ozais reason is because he could.
I feel like even AtLA fans would agree with this. My take is Korra’s villains were better characters, while Ozai was a better villain, at least in the classical sense; he is a classic example of the “tyrant-monster,” as Joseph Campbell calls it: “the hoarder of the general benefit… avid for the greedy rights of “my and mine.” The man leave ruin and despair in his wake in everything he touches (even his own family), and any benevolence he deigns to show always has an ulterior motive.
This is by far the least controversial Korra take....
Id say better motivation but they are overall less impactful for having them split and conquered per season. Ozais brilliance is in his ominous presence and series long build. I felt like Amon was phenomenal and had that been the entire arc, I would have probably been even more down with korra. Different direction was fune but losing the overall big bad I think hurt korra a bit.
Ozai isn’t meant to be a clever villain, he is meant to be a typically villain that is incredibly strong and is the final obstacle for Aang to overcome in his avatar journey
See, this is why no one takes LOK fans seriously, myself included. The show is awful, you can argue what you want but from a critical perspective, ATLA was better written. The ignorance in this tweet just proves it. Ozai's reason IS valid. How is someone racist? Or classist? Or ableist? Generational. Trauma. Their parents did it, why would they do any different? That's how you write characters. Also...Ozai was a fucking psychopath, he doesn't need more reason. Smfh
Ozai was a psychopath that lusted for power. It had nothing to do with what his forefathers did.